As appalled as one may feel by the questionable manner in which Minister for National Security Itamar Ben Gvir comports himself in his day-to-day activities and statements, there is one aspect upon which he is right.

This is his oft-repeated and legally-sound claim, from long before he became a minister, that the right of worship – including by Jews - is an internationally recognized universal right that should be applied equally, and without discrimination on Temple Mount, to worshippers of all religions.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Without wishing to impinge in any way on the recognized and accepted, historic prerogative of Muslims to pray at the Muslim sacred sites within the Temple Mount compound including the Al-Aqsa Mosque, it is nevertheless inconceivable in the modern age of accepted international norms and concepts of equality, human rights and freedom of religion and worship, that Jews should be prevented from exercising the right of worship at the very epicenter of the Jewish faith, within the same compound on Temple Mount, parallel to exercise or the same right by Muslims. Such discrimination runs counter to accepted norms of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, tolerance, understanding, and cooperation.

The problem centers around the age-old Ottoman "status quo" governing custodianship, worship, and visits to Temple Mount. This status quo formalized by Ottoman imperial decrees stemming from the 18th and 19th centuries, restricted prayer on the Mount by non-Muslims.

Such a discriminatory situation might indeed have been pertinent at the time of its practice inasmuch as it reflected the then-existing social hierarchy within Ottoman society that governed the area. In this social hierarchy, an institutionalized second-class status of dhimmi was applied to non-Muslim subjects, whether they be Jews, Christians, or other minority religions. This status quo, while limiting the rights of worship of non-Muslim subjects, was intended to protect them from forced conversion to Islam and to enable them to practice their religion in a limited manner within Ottoman Muslim society, subject to paying a special jizya tax. This also required non-Muslim subjects to distinguish themselves from their Muslim neighbors by dress and they were not permitted to build new churches or synagogues but only to repair old ones.

This anachronistic and blatantly discriminatory status quo was sustained and maintained by the British during their Mandate over Palestine, after the termination of the 600-year-old Ottoman Empire, and the prohibition on Jewish worship and restriction on entry by Jews reaffirmed.

In 1924, when the Ottoman Caliphate officially ended, custodianship over the Temple Mount was transferred by the British to the Supreme Muslim Council, considered the highest body in charge of Muslim community affairs in Mandatory Palestine, headed by Sharif Hussein Bin Ali, considered to be the "King of the Arabs", the new Caliph of Muslims and protector of the city's people and its holy sites.

This title of custodian passed to the consecutive rulers of Jordan, considered descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, who also retained the prohibition on Jewish worship.

After Israel attained control east Jerusalem during the "Six-Day War" in 1967, and with a view to avoiding possible interreligious disputes and violence, Israel acknowledged the status quo with Jordan's continuing responsibility for administration and religious arrangements regarding Temple Mount, subject to Israel's retention of overall responsibility for security and public order.

This modified version of the ancient status quo was bolstered by Israel, Jordan, and the United States in 1994 in the context of establishing peace between Israel and Jordan, and formalized in the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty of October 26, 1994, where Israel committed to respecting "the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem."

In his formal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city, dated December 6, 2017, US President Trump called on all parties "to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem's holy sites, including the Temple Mount …..."

This call to maintain the status quo, elicited a series of predictable if superfluous responses by a choir composed of the United Nations, the European Union, European leaders, and Christian church leaders, all calling for respecting Jerusalem's status quo according to the relevant UN resolutions regarding the city.

In a 1984 judgment by Israel's Supreme Court regarding Jewish worship rights on Temple Mount, summarizing previous judgments on the same subject, then-Chief Justice Aharon Barak acknowledged the basic principles of freedom of worship and freedom of expression, but nevertheless held that:

"….every Jew has the right to enter the Temple Mount, to pray there, and to have communion with his Maker.  However, as with every human right, it is not absolute, but a relative right… Indeed, in a case where there is near certainty that injury may be caused to the public interest if a person's rights of religious worship and freedom of expression would be realized, it is possible to limit the rights of the person in order to uphold the public interest."

Indeed, in the present ambiance of heightened Muslim sensitivity, wild incitement, and extreme political manipulation, any realization of the rights of Jews to worship on the Temple Mount appears to be unrealistic. That being said, in the twenty-first century, the dichotomy between an ancient, discriminatory, and anachronistic status quo on the one hand, and the fundamental international right of worship for all, calls for a practical and honorable resolution that respects the rights of all.

Regrettably, whether out of political correctness vis-à-vis the Muslim world or fear of religious and social sensitivities, progressive, liberal, and democratic societies churches and other bodies in the international community, in a cynical demonstration of double standards, have chosen in a long series of international decisions and resolutions, to accept and acknowledge the continuing validity of this anachronistic status quo, despite its being wholly at odds with the developing 20th and 21st-century international notions of equality, human rights, and liberalism.

Such bodies chose to do so without realizing the inherent conflict between such a policy viewpoint and the current international practice that they systematically advocate in the field of human rights.

International norms and concepts of equality, human rights, freedom of religion and worship, interreligious and intercultural dialogue, tolerance, understanding, and cooperation have been drafted, codified, and unanimously accepted over the years through international covenants, treaties, and UN declarations and resolutions that have been universally accepted within the international community as part and parcel of what has become known as an established "culture of peace."

Jerusalem's Temple Mount remains an intractable, emotive, and volatile issue, constantly recreating cycles of violence. Israel, together with a responsible Palestinian leadership, and with the support of rational Arab states and the international community, if they genuinely seek to resolve the impasse, need, to address this issue in a pragmatic, realistic, and constructive manner.

Perhaps the first step needs to be acknowledgment and realization by all concerned, including the respective religious leaderships, that a vital prerequisite for any definitive resolution of the dispute between Arabs and Jews, is a logical and respectful remodeling of the antiquated status quo, to be based on present-day international values and standards of fairness, equity, equality, and mutual respect, while protecting basic religious sensitivities and procedures.

Such a new, remodeled status quo guaranteeing reciprocal recognition of religious rights could comprise the following principles:

· Recognition by each party of their ancient mutual ties to the Temple Mount; acknowledgment of the right to freedom of worship subject to respecting existing religious procedures; coordinated prayer arrangement enabling jointly administered and mutually secure worship at agreed locations and times, with special provisions for respective religious festivals; joint administrative body to coordinate and regulate day-to-day issues of access, visits, prayer, provision of services, resolution of problems, and cooperation with respective governmental and municipal bodies as well as with other religious bodies; joint security regime to regulate implementation and handle disruptive behavior, politically motivated violence, and day-to-day criminal issues; coordination on archaeological excavation and construction on the Temple Mount; international acceptance of and concurrence with such a remodeled status quo, including revocation of resolutions by UNESCO and other organizations incompatible with such a remodeled status quo; acceptance and recognition of the new status quo by world religious bodies and churches.

Achieving such a remodeled status quo would require on the part of the Palestinian, Jordanian, and Israeli parties, support from the respective religious leaderships, and active, ongoing public encouragement through the media in order to counteract those elements that would inevitably seek to obstruct such a project.

Acknowledgment by the parties involved – chiefly the Palestinians, Jordan, and Israel, but also by the United States, Europe, and moderate Muslim states, of the centrality of this factor in the Middle East reality, together with the realization of the dire and urgent need to resolve it, could contribute significantly to lessening tension and increasing mutual trust.

Accepting a new status quo would generate the dynamics that enable the resolution of many other, more pragmatic, and less passionate issues to build mutual trust and achieve a comprehensive peace in the region.

Alan Baker served as the legal advisor to Israel's foreign ministry and Israel's ambassador to Canada. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the various peace treaties and other agreements between Israel and its neighbors. He presently directs the international law program at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
This article is an abbreviated version of a paper by Ambassador Baker published in Aug. 2022 by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs entitled "The Discriminatory "Status Quo" on Jerusalem's Temple Mount: An International Law Viewpoint."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post A new status quo for Temple Mount appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Religious practices and observances at major religious sites and shrines are often based strictly and uncompromisingly on historical determinations, customs and practices that have been given the revered and even irreversible and holy status of a "status quo."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Such determinations, customs and practices were usually developed in order to address the specific historical circumstances relevant at the time of their establishment. More often than not, however, they are inherently discriminatory and run counter to today's accepted norms and standards of interreligious tolerance and human rights.

Today's international community in general, and individual states and religious communities in particular, face the challenge of attempting to realize and implement modern-day norms of interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance at such religious sites. This means that they must adapt a seemingly irreversible "status quo" to present-day universal humanitarian standards and values such as religious freedom.

The question is whether such adaptation is attainable in practice.

One of the most striking examples of a problematic "status quo" that causes endless incitement to hatred, strife and violence between religious faiths, communities and states is Jerusalem's Temple Mount, which from time immemorial has weathered innumerable conflicts and holy wars between Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

The current issues beleaguering any hope of achieving tranquility in Jerusalem are based on an age-old Ottoman status quo that governs custodianship, worship and visits to the Mount. This status quo was first established in 1757 and formalized by Ottoman imperial decrees (firmans) issued by Sultan Abdul Mejid in 1852 and 1856. These decrees froze claims by religious communities in Jerusalem and Bethlehem to Christian holy places and forbad any alterations to their existing status. While this status quo may have been relevant and even "normal" under a Muslim regime that relegated Jews and Christians to the second-class status of dhimmis, it completely contradicts today's international norms of religious freedom and non-discrimination.

The prohibition on Jews ascending to the Temple Mount had existed prior to Ottoman rule during the Mameluke era (1250–1516) and was maintained under Ottoman rule from 1516–1917. It was acknowledged by Western powers at the 1856 Paris Conference and in the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, article 62 of which stated, "It is well understood that no alterations can be made to the Status Quo in the Holy Places."

After the defeat of the Ottomans in World War I, the partitioning of their empire and the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine (1920–1947), this did not change. The mandate stated, in part, "Nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or management of purely Muslim sacred shrines." As a result, the British upheld the status quo arrangement.

During the Mandate era, custodianship over the Temple Mount was transferred to the Supreme Muslim Council, considered the highest governing authority of Muslim community affairs in Mandatory Palestine. In 1924, the Council bestowed custodianship of the holy sites upon the new Caliph of Muslims and protector of the city Sharif Hussein Bin Ali, considered the "King of the Arabs." This was formalized in a 1924 verbal agreement, which bestowed the title of "custodian" upon the rulers of Jordan, considered descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.

In 1967, Israel acquired control over the Temple Mount and, to prevent possible interreligious disputes and violence, decided to preserve the status quo. In so doing, Israel acknowledged Jordan's continuing responsibility for administration and religious arrangements regarding the site, subject to Israel's retention of responsibility for security and public order.

The status quo was bolstered by Israel, Jordan and the United States in two important 1994 documents regarding the establishment of peace between Israel and Jordan: The Israel-Jordan "Washington Declaration" of Aug. 5, 1994—witnessed by the United States—and the subsequent Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty of Oct. 26, 1994. In both documents, Israel committed itself to respecting "the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem."

In a 2013 agreement between the Palestinian leadership and Jordan's King Abdullah II, which in effect replaced the former verbal agreement of 1924 between the Supreme Muslim Council and the Hashemite dynasty, the two parties reaffirmed Jordanian custodianship of the holy places, while acknowledging Palestinian claims to sovereignty in Jerusalem.

Israel's acknowledgment of the arrangements regarding the Temple Mount was reaffirmed in what became known as the "Kerry Understandings," reached in 2015 between then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the Israeli and Jordanian governments. These understandings acknowledged Jordan's special role in Jerusalem as defined in the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, including Jordan's historic role as "guardian of the Islamic holy places" in Jerusalem. They also reaffirmed the status quo on the Temple Mount, which allows non-Muslims to visit but not to pray.

In other words, Western democracies, whether out of political correctness vis-à-vis the Muslim world or fear of religious and social sensitivities, chose to accept and acknowledge the continuing validity of this anachronistic status quo, even though it is wholly at odds with international norms of equality and human rights.

Progressive, liberal and democratic societies and international bodies—including the United States, the United Kingdom and other European states, as well as international and regional organizations like the United Nations—overlook and ignore the inherently discriminatory nature of the Temple Mount status quo, accepting and perpetuating it in a cynical demonstration of double standards.

It is indeed enlightening that these states, international organizations and churches choose to maintain their anachronistic position on the issue without realizing the inherent conflict between it and their own advocacy of human rights, which include strong protections of religious freedom. Instead, they choose to reaffirm a blatantly discriminatory status quo that violates accepted international norms and principles.

In light of what appears to be an intractable and emotive dilemma with little hope of achieving an acceptable and agreed resolution, the parties to the dispute, if they genuinely seek to resolve the impasse, need, together with the international community, to address it in a pragmatic, realistic and constructive manner.

Perhaps the first step is the acknowledgment and realization by all concerned, including the respective religious leaderships, that a vital prerequisite for any definitive resolution to the dispute between Arabs and Jews is a logical and respectful remodeling of the antiquated status quo. This should be based on present-day international values and standards of fairness, equity, equality and mutual respect, while protecting basic religious sensitivities and procedures.

Such a new, remodeled status quo would comprise the following principles:

• Reciprocal, principled recognition by each party of their ancient mutual ties to the Temple Mount.
• Reciprocal acknowledgment of the right to freedom of worship, subject to respecting existing religious procedures.
• A coordinated prayer arrangement similar to that practiced in Hebron, which would enable jointly administered and mutually secure worship on the Temple Mount at agreed locations and times, with special provisions for respective religious festivals.
• A joint security regime to regulate the implementation of the new status quo and deal with disruptive behavior, politically-motivated violence and day-to-day criminal issues.
• A joint administrative body to coordinate and regulate day-to-day issues of access, visits, prayer, provision of services, resolution of disputes and cooperation with respective governmental, municipal and religious bodies.
• Joint agreement on the regulation of any archaeological excavation and construction on the Mount.
• International acceptance of and concurrence with such a remodeled status quo, including revocation of resolutions by UNESCO and other organizations that are incompatible with it.
• Acceptance and recognition of the new status quo by world religious bodies and churches.

Clearly, serious consideration of a remodeled status quo would require positive support, encouragement and endorsement by all the interested and relevant actors, whether local or international.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

It would require the Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli parties to give institutional support to the new arrangement. It must also be supported by the respective religious leaderships and active, ongoing public encouragement through the media and among the respective communities, in order to counteract those elements that would inevitably seek to obstruct such a project.

Acknowledgment by the parties involved of the centrality of this factor in the Middle East reality, together with the realization of the dire and urgent need to resolve it, could contribute significantly to lessening tensions and increasing mutual trust.

Accepting a new status quo would generate the dynamics that enable the resolution of many other, more pragmatic and less passionate issues that could achieve comprehensive peace in the region.

Featured on JNS.org, this article was first published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The post Time for a new status-quo on Temple Mount appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The penchant for criticizing Israel, whatever it may or may not do, appears to have become a permanent fixation. Whether such criticism relates to Israel's internal policies, governance of the territories and responses to terror attacks, or situations with no apparent linkage to Israel, the obsession with Israel and its alleged malfeasances inevitably emerges.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

No such fixation exists in regard to any other country. The obsessives single out Israel as a butt of criticism for any and every reason. It appears to be an ingrained component of the psyche of those who revel in it and seek out every opportunity to denigrate and delegitimize the Jewish state.

No society or country is beyond rational criticism, Israel included. Israeli society, media and domestic politics are examples of the country's openness and critical introspection.

Odd as it may seem, however, as a member of the world community, Israel has never benefited from the equality to which every other state is entitled. Since its establishment and acceptance into the United Nations as a full-fledged member of the international community, Israel has been denied one of the basic rights guaranteed to all states as set out in the opening articles of the Charter of the United Nations – that of sovereign equality.

This discrimination, which continues to the present, takes the form of exclusion from UN regional groupings. This prevents Israel from exercising the right to submit its candidacy and candidates to UN organs such as the Security Council or the International Court of Justice. Since this discrimination has been the accepted norm for over 70 years, it is no wonder that the fixation on singling out Israel is accepted internationally.

This normalization of the obsession with Israel extends to political and media entities, domestic and international, who have an agenda hostile to Israel's existence and engage in delegitimizing Israel in international fora. These obsessed critics also include progressive and liberal elements within Western Jewish and gentile communities.

Another obvious source of automatic criticism has existed from time immemorial and permeates international society – antisemitism.

This is reflected in the anti-Israel fixation of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian elements that seek to delegitimize Israel in the international community. In turn, the effectiveness of their strategy is evident in the abuse and manipulation of respected international bodies such as the International Criminal Court, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN educational and cultural agency UNESCO.

As is widely known, the establishment of the ICC was inspired by the horrors of the Holocaust and other grave atrocities and crimes of concern to the international community, with the purpose of ensuring that the perpetrators of these crimes would be duly punished. Jewish and Israeli lawyers were among those who envisioned and worked toward the creation of such a court.

The Palestinians, however, have attempted to hijack the court and turn it into an Israel-bashing tribunal, abusing and undermining its founding statute. A similar phenomenon has occurred with the hijacking and irreparable abuse of the UN's Human Rights Council, whose declared mission is "to promote and protect human rights around the world."

Even the ostensibly professional UNESCO organization – established to promote "collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world" – has been similarly hijacked, preferring to vent an obsession with Israel through politically inspired resolutions denying the linkage of the Jewish people to its historic holy sites.

Recently, the Palestinians have voiced concern that the international community is more interested in the Russia-Ukraine war than in pursuing Israel. Their expressions of indignation seek to equate the low-intensity Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the high-intensity open warfare conducted by Russia against Ukraine, with its massive bombardment of civilians, use of illegal weaponry and millions of refugees.

This attempt to invent a false equation is misplaced and malicious, indicative of the blindness caused by the obsession with criticizing Israel.

This obsession has also been voiced by the fringe US anti-Zionist organization Jewish Voice for Peace, which claimed, "The Israeli government is settling Jewish Ukrainian refugees on land it illegally occupies."

Similarly, American Jewish pro-Palestinian propagandist and apologist Peter Beinart stated in the left-wing magazine Jewish Currents:

Ukrainians, mostly white and Christian people battling an American foe, are viewed as fully human, and thus entitled to fight for their freedom. Palestinians, mostly non-white and non-Christian people battling an American ally, are not.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Similar malicious comparisons have been made by former Human Rights Watch director Sarah Leah Whitson, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace Lara Friedman, president of the Arab American Institute James Zogby and British Labor Parliament member Julie Elliott.

The attempts to equate the immensity and lethality of the Russia-Ukraine war with the Palestinian issue are false, misguided and presumptuous. They misrepresent the nature, history and complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and ignore and undermine the ongoing Middle East peace process sponsored and supported by the international community.

The post Criticizing Israel has become a permanent obsession appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The US administration's declared intention to reopen its Jerusalem consulate as a representative body to the Palestinian leadership and to provide consular services to the population of the disputed territories is becoming a growing, political stumbling block in the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

As currently considered, establishing a consulate would be incompatible with US policy and American international-law commitments. It would also undermine US commitments and proclamations.

If Israel formally refused to give its consent to the decision to open the consulate, and the Biden administration went ahead with its implementation, it would nonetheless put the United States in a position of flagrant violation of the relevant international convention dealing with consular relations between states.

The complexity and delicacy of the consulate issue are being compounded by statements made by Palestinian leaders, who are turning the case into a symbolic focal point in their claims to re-divide Jerusalem and to cancel the former administration's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city.

In addition to the US Congress's commitments over the years, endorsing Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital city, the following points of international law cannot be ignored:

First, the May 2018 proclamation by the United States formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel constituted a significant change of US policy. It revoked the situation that existed beforehand in which, since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Jerusalem had never been considered by the United States to be Israeli sovereign territory.

Second, the formal American recognition of Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem established a new bilateral legal situation that replaced the former policy of non-recognition, whereby the United States acknowledged the application of Israeli law in Jerusalem.

Thirds, the former situation had enabled the United States, as well as some other countries, to maintain independent consular missions, which existed since the mid-19th century Ottoman administration of the area and intended to serve Americans visiting the Holy Land.

Then there is the fact that, with the establishment, through the 1993 Oslo Accords, of the Palestinian Authority as an autonomous administration with powers and responsibilities in parts of the disputed territories, the independent and separate US Consulate in Jerusalem developed a new role. It was to oversee US relations with this Palestinian political entity and Palestinian residents of eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

Also, in acknowledging Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem, the 2018 proclamation irrevocably altered this situation and rendered the existence of an independent US consulate in Jerusalem, serving the Palestinian administration and population of the territories, as redundant and incompatible with US official policy.

With the 2018 recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mutually accepted consular relationship between Israel and the United States is based on the 1963 Vienna Convention of Consular Relations, to which both Israel and the United States are parties. Article 4 of this convention determines that consular posts or any other offices forming part of a consular post may only be established in the territory of the receiving state with that state's consent. Similarly, articles 7 and 8 of the convention require that the exercise of consular functions vis-à-vis or on behalf of another state requires specific approval.

The United States is one of the signatories as a witness to the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO. In Article IX (5) of the 1995 Israel-PLO Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), the parties agreed that the Palestinian Authority established by the agreement to administer the areas under its control will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations. This includes permitting the establishment of foreign missions in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, the appointment of or admission of diplomatic and consular staff and the exercise of diplomatic functions.

The same article of the agreement provides for the possible establishment of "representative offices" by foreign states in the area under the control of the Palestinian Authority, as a means of furthering and implementing economic, cultural agreements for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority.

Reopening a US consulate in Jerusalem to serve the P.A. and its population would be totally incompatible with the Oslo Accords and would constitute an undermining of US status as a witness to the accords.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Opening by the United States of such a representative office in Ramallah, Gaza or anywhere else in the territories under Palestinian governance would be in accordance with the peace-process documentation agreed to by Israel and the Palestinians and supported by the United States and others—and would not require Israel's consent, inasmuch as Israeli law is not applied in those areas.

Only in this manner could the United States establish a mission to provide services to the P.A. and its population that would be compatible with, not undermine, US policy and American international-law commitments and proclamations.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post US Consulate in Jerusalem: The bottom line appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In recent years, Israel's involvement in military operations, whether vis-à-vis Hizbullah in the north or Hamas in the south and especially during the May 2021 "Guardian of the Walls" operation, is characterized by a unique dilemma that often crops up in Israel's efforts to explain itself in the field of public diplomacy, or in its Hebrew, "Hasbara."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Israel's public diplomacy – as professional and practical as it may be – tasked with explaining its military operations in defending itself and responding to terror attacks, fails to convince the international media and other Western political elements.

It is clear that many foreign media and political elements have generally held an overall negative, critical, and even hostile viewpoint regarding anything Israel does. This is enhanced even more during military and counter-terror operations, when foreign media and political players prefer to buy into the propaganda that portrays Gaza as the victim and underdog, fighting what is presented as the military might of Israel.

The widespread use of attention-grabbing and often sensationalist graphic imagery, provided to the world by the Hamas propaganda and public relations sources showing destruction and casualties, including children, only serves to enhance the negative, critical, and often outright hostile viewpoint of Israel in the international media.

In the early days of any combat operation, Israel is usually seen to be on the defensive when faced with the physical and military need to protect its civilians from massive missile and rocket attacks, as well as arbitrary shootings and acts of terror along its borders. This includes attempts to penetrate its sovereign territory through offensive tunnels used to attack Israeli citizens in border towns and villages.

Israel responds by exercising its internationally recognized, inherent right to self-defense when attacked by aggressive and offensive terror. Such responses include legitimate counter-attacks against the sources of aggression, including rocket emplacements and tactical military targets, as well as offensive actions against the sources of terror, including those terrorists actively involved.

Israel receives a wave of international sympathy and recognition by most Western leaders and institutions for its fundamental right under international law to self-defense in the face of aggression and terrorism. This is true as long as Israel and its citizens are perceived by the world as victims of terror and aggression.

In this temporary situation, the task of public diplomacy, or hasbara, appears to be simple, self-evident, and even superfluous. Most foreign officials are unanimous as to the legitimacy of Israel's response aimed at protecting the lives of its citizens and the territorial integrity of the state.

However, the international wave of sympathy and acknowledgment of Israel's right to self-defense in the face of aggression and terror has a very brief shelf life.

As soon as the Hamas propaganda machine provides thirsty Western media sources with graphic images of destruction, including pictures of wounded children and dead bodies, any sympathy and understanding for Israel disappear and are forgotten. The sympathy undergoes a kind of "metamorphosis" and is replaced by disdain, criticism and condemnation.

With the dissemination of graphic images, many regularly repeated accusations are rapidly leveled against Israel by international leaders, media and human rights organizations, including: "Use of excessive and disproportionate force," "Collective punishment," "Deliberate and indiscriminate assault against private homes and public buildings," "Unjustified damage to civilian infrastructure," "Civilian casualties," and more

The creation of a false equivalence between Israel and Hamas is a regular phenomenon and only occurs with regard to the Jewish state. Such cynical equivalence obscures and ignores, on the one hand, the logical and necessary distinction between the actions of an authoritarian terror organization that arbitrarily and deliberately seeks to target Israeli civilians and even harms its own citizens, and a democratic sovereign state that exercises its recognized international right to self-defense.

Such false equivalence, as well as the irresistible urge to display evenhandedness, deliberately ignore those measures that Israel takes to respect and uphold humanitarian norms aimed at reducing casualties. Such efforts include providing warnings and calls for the evacuation of civilians before responding to rocket attacks with action against legitimate military targets.

It would appear that most political and media elements, whether out of sheer sensationalism or inherent political or other bias, prefer to refrain from presenting a true, accurate and honest representation of the situation. They fail to acknowledge the fact that Israel abides by its military prerogative to defend itself, and at the same time, goes to extensive lengths to respect international humanitarian norms of protecting civilians.

In this context, perhaps the most ridiculous accusation leveled against Israel on the international level, including by political leaders, is that of "imbalanced casualties." According to this view, the generally low number of Israeli casualties (due to Israel's missile defense systems and civil defense safeguards) compared to the relatively high number of Palestinian casualties (due to the Palestinian practice of deploying their arms depots and launchers in residential areas and placing their civilians in danger by using them as human shields) mean Israel's self-defense efforts are illegitimate.

The cynical implied message is that Israel's actions would be more moral if the number of Israeli casualties was higher!

Israel's public diplomacy dilemma lies in the unique and unprecedented circumstances that exist in the region:

• Palestinian use of massive and indiscriminate rocket fire targeting Israel's civilian population in order to cause maximum human casualties and destruction of property.

• Israel's ability to protect its population from missiles with the Iron Dome missile defense system, which significantly reduces the risk of harm to civilians and property.

• Palestinian abuse of its civilian population, hospitals, schools, mosques, private homes and public buildings as human shields, in clear violation of international humanitarian law, exposing them to the risk of harm from any Israeli reprisal against legitimate military targets.

• Palestinian use of the private homes of their leaders and senior commanders for storage of weapons, as headquarters and tactical centers for coordination, thereby rendering them legitimate military targets.

• The scores of kilometers of Hamas tunnels under roads, public squares, civilian structures, schools, hospitals and mosques in Gaza (known as the Gaza "Metro").

• Israel's military practice of minimizing collateral harm to civilians not involved in the conflict, as required of a law-abiding state committed to applying the norms of international humanitarian law.

These unique characteristics are not reported by the international media, which prefer to focus on graphic images of destruction and casualties. There is also a natural urge to prejudge Israel negatively and favor the "underdog."

Sadly, there exists reason to presume that the international media's persistently biased and hostile attitude to Israel, especially during its periodic defensive military operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, may also emanate from long-existing and ingrained antagonism toward Israel, and even a degree of anti-Semitism, on the part of journalists, editors and editorial boards.

The unique problem of Israel's public diplomacy, when accompanied by the inherent lack of fairness and integrity in global media coverage, has serious implications for the efforts of Israeli diplomats around the world.

This is no less a problem for the leaders of Jewish communities in Europe and North America, which are expected by their fellow citizens to respond to accusations leveled against Israel by the media and by senior political players.

In light of these singular features of Israel's public diplomacy challenge, the question arises of whether it is possible to more successfully leverage them to create a better understanding of the security and moral challenges that Israel faces.

Given the automatic and consistent international tendency to ignore these particular attributes, and in light of the ease and willingness of the international community to blame and condemn Israel, declare Israel's guilt in advance and create a distorted and false equivalence, it will be difficult to change this reality.

However, it is possible to strengthen the content and credibility of Israel's public diplomacy. Foreign political and media elements could be convinced by the logic and legitimacy of Israel's military activity by emphasizing several points:

Rather than media interviews by Israeli leaders, politicians, military personnel, diplomats and jurists, it would be preferable to rely on prominent foreign military and legal experts, including officers with combat experience in various battle zones around the world, who can credibly and no less professionally explain Israel's military operations and legal prerogatives, without being perceived as Israeli political propagandists.

Senior Israeli military officers, commanders and other personnel engaged in the ongoing military operations should not be permitted to appear before Israeli and international media. Such disclosure not only jeopardizes their personal and family safety but also exposes them to dangers of possible accusations and international commissions of inquiry, as well as possible legal action in international courts.

Any reporting on combat activity and performance of IDF forces should be solely by the designated IDF Spokesperson's Unit, without any need to reveal the identity of operational commanders and senior division commanders involved in the operation. The men and women in the Spokesperson's Office should be selected for their intellect, sincerity and communication abilities. Officers from units such as the Intelligence Branch may tend to be taciturn and reluctant to engage their interlocutors.

To the extent possible in terms of their personal and family security, media appearances and international diplomacy missions by senior Israeli Arab and Druze citizens, including academics, media professionals, clerics and municipal leaders, should be encouraged.

The recent establishment of normal and friendly relations with the leaders of Arab countries in the Gulf and Morocco following the "Abraham Accords" provides professional contacts with academic institutions, military personnel and research institutes. In light of the commonality of interests between these states and Israel in dealing with militant Islamic elements, leading personalities in these countries might be encouraged to proffer public and media support for Israel's efforts to defend itself against terror. Such support would be of high international credibility and media value.

To avoid a vacuum in the efforts of Israel's public diplomacy and to prevent delays in providing answers to media complaints, Israel's diplomatic representatives abroad and leadership of Jewish communities in Europe and North America need to be equipped, in real time, with substantive and professional answers to media allegations and hostile propaganda leveled against Israel.

The widespread Hamas propaganda showing Palestinian children in demonstrations and military parades, often wearing military uniforms and holding weapons, is, by any moral standard, a shocking, immoral and illegal exploitation of children. This is a flagrant violation of international conventions prohibiting the exploitation of children for combat purposes.

Given the acute international sensitivity, especially in Europe and North America, to the phenomenon of child abuse, and especially in light of Hamas's consistent use of images of injured children in its propaganda, any such exploitation of children for purposes of warfare and propaganda should figure extensively as a central component of Israeli public diplomacy.

By the same token, European and North American countries and their publics are particularly sensitive to ecological and biological damage caused by Hamas through the repeated use of incendiary balloons and other devices to ignite forest fires and destroy grain fields and nature and animal preserves. Hamas's attacks also cause extensive pollution and suffocation by directing massive waves of smoke against the Israeli population in the vicinity of the Gaza border.

The reoccurring use by Hamas and Hezbollah of ecological, biological and agricultural terror against Israel's civilian population contravenes a series of international conventions on ecology and humanitarian law, and these crimes should become a central component of Israel's public diplomacy.

The attempt by Hamas in the context of Israel's "Operation Guardian of the Walls" to establish an utterly false and artificial interdependence between events in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and the actions of Hamas vis-à-vis Israel on the other, calls for concerted public diplomacy to block such an attempt.

This is all the more so because serious media outlets (especially The New York Times) have bought into and indicated support for such a linkage, using it as another lever of criticism against Israel in the context of Jerusalem.

Israel's message in this context should be based on the premise that the governance of the city of Jerusalem, in all its areas, including protecting the holy sites, maintaining public order, managing daily life, and any civil legal issues related to the ownership of property in the city are the sole responsibility of Israel and bear no affinity or connection with the Gaza Strip.

The 1995-9 Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO and Israel, as witnessed and countersigned by world political leaders and approved by the United Nations, are premised upon agreement between Israel and the Palestinian leadership (the PLO, not Hamas) that the issue of Jerusalem is the subject of negotiations on the permanent status of the territories. As such, Hamas has no standing and cannot artificially manipulate the international community into accepting any such false linkage.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

It is hoped that effective, compelling, and credible public diplomacy will utilize these points as a means of enhancing the understanding of Israel's military activity in defending itself against terror and countering the false propaganda against it.

It is also hoped that a better comprehension of Israel's case will redirect international political players, media, and international institutions, which have made a regrettable habit of prejudging Israel without considering facts, reliable information, and the truth.

Alan Baker is director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel's Foreign Ministry and as Israel's ambassador to Canada.

Featured on JNS.org, this article was first published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The post Israel's public diplomacy dilemma appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

This latest tantrum by Abbas, and subsequent actions to unilaterally halt security, health and other forms of cooperation with Israel, raise several interesting legal and political questions regarding the veracity and credibility of all and any Palestinian commitments, whether in the various documents comprising the1993 Oslo Accords, or in other international commitments entered into by the Palestinians.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

For if the Palestinian leadership feels that it can glibly and freely revoke solemn obligations in signed agreements, witnessed and guaranteed by international leaders, merely at the whim of Abbas and his close advisers and merely because they disapprove of, and even object to, speeches or Israeli policy statements, then one may indeed ask what value or reliability do any Palestinian commitments – past, present or future – hold?

What is perhaps curious, if not even sad, in Abbas's declaration and actions is the fact that they are ostensibly not in response to any specific Israeli action that might be interpreted as violating those agreements. Israel, true to its Oslo Accords obligations, has not made any unilateral alteration in the status of the territories.

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
Your email
The Palestinian actions are merely in response to a provision in the Israel government's coalition agreement and a speech by Israel's prime minister in the Israeli Knesset, expressing possible intentions to apply Israeli law or sovereignty to parts of the territories at a later date, but without such actions having been actually taken and without any detail as to how and if such actions will indeed materialize.

To the contrary, the Trump peace plan invites the Palestinian leadership to involve itself in negotiating the implementation of the plan, with extensive financial and economic inducements that would greatly benefit the Palestinian population. But after having rejected the plan outright, and having removed himself from the negotiating table, Abbas is in no position to threaten or pressure Israel and the United States. He does not have at his disposal any right of veto.

In light of Abbas's declaration absolving the Palestinians from all obligations, the question arises whether such abrogation, as well as the actual, unilateral violation by the Palestinian leadership of its commitments in the Oslo Accords, through actively obstructing and preventing security and other forms of bilateral cooperation, does not represent a material breach of those accords, rendering them frustrated and impossible to implement, and thereby enabling Israel to declare them void.

One may even ask the international community what value exists in the continued Palestinian fixation of acceding to international conventions in violation of their Oslo commitments, when they demonstrate so assertively that they can freely violate any commitments in such conventions and agreements, for no good reason.

Abbas justifies his actions against both the United States and Israel on the basis of his deep antipathy towards the Trump peace plan, to the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city, and his personal aversion to President Trump himself. But the Trump plan, in and of itself, violates no agreement as such. It merely sets out an ostensible framework for peace between the Palestinians and Israel, including the establishment of a Palestinian state and the granting of considerable economic benefits for the Palestinian people.

Indeed, one may ask how any of this could be seen to justify – legally or politically – Abbas's declaration absolving the Palestinians from all agreements and understandings, and the subsequent instructions to obstruct and impede security cooperation with Israel, much of which serves the interests of the Palestinian leadership itself as well as the Palestinian population.

By the same token, practically speaking, one may ask how Abbas and his colleagues intend to free themselves from such obligations as that specified in the September 1993 Exchange of Letters of Mutual Recognition between PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, in the name of the Palestinian People, and Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, according to which the PLO head declared that "all outstanding issues relating to the permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."

Similarly, the question arises how the abrogation of security cooperation obligations will affect the very central and vital Palestinian commitments in the Oslo Accords to "take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities." By the same token, their specific obligations to prevent and to act against incitement and hostile propaganda as well as to cooperate in preventing criminal activity, drug trafficking and the like, represent central obligations which, inasmuch as they are not already being repeatedly violated by the Palestinians, constitute a fundamental component of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

The implications of the violation of such commitments could be considerable and most serious inasmuch as they represent the very heart of the neighborly relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Their formal abrogation by the Palestinian leadership, for no apparent or justifiable reason, could indeed be seen to be a fundamental breach of the accords, entitling Israel to consider them void, and to pursue its own vital security and territorial interests without being limited by any obligations emanating from the Oslo Accords. This is particularly significant in relation to those provisions dealing with security of the airspace and security along the Gaza coastline and provisions granting rights of Palestinian VIP and police passage.

Even in the long list of non-security-related fields of cooperation and coordination covered by the Civil Affairs Protocol to the Interim Agreement, including health, agriculture, water and sewage, telecommunications, fisheries, fuels, quarries, tourism and transportation, as well as the other protocols to the agreement covering legal cooperation, economic and financial relations, Abbas's whimsical termination of the agreement with Israel would cause considerable harm and suffering to his own population.

The Palestinian declaration should be taken very seriously, both by Israel, the United States and the international community, all of whom have a serious stake in maintaining the integrity of the peace process.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Abbas' latest tantrum appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

On the international level, members of the international community – whether states or international organizations – are called upon to follow the warnings, instructions and professional advice of the World Health Organization, and to demonstrate the essential qualities of good faith, cooperation, honesty and openness in order to fight the pandemic on the global level.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

On the internal, national level, individual states face the challenge of urging, and even obliging, their citizens to abide by strict isolation instructions in order to halt the internal spread of the virus – all while trying to cope with the provision of essential medical services and facilities to treat those already infected. This challenge is compounded by the resulting economic and social dilemmas posed by mass unemployment, the stifling of social contact and the need to explain to, and educate, the public. All these constitute virtually insurmountable challenges even to the most technologically and economically advanced states.

On the level of the individual, the challenge is no less onerous, fearful, confusing and frustrating, especially with the unending rise in the numbers of fatalities and infected, with little hope of an end in sight.

Like water, contagious diseases know no borders. They do not distinguish between peoples, countries and religions, nor do they recognize conflicts. They do not observe treaties, armistices or ceasefires. They are neither Christian, Muslim nor Jewish. They do not care about United Nations resolutions. Water flows, and diseases spread, unless they are prevented from doing so.

By the same token, being so vital and essential to humanity, fighting the spread of disease and ensuring the provision of water share the unique potential to serve as catalysts and as potential factors in encouraging and enhancing peace and cooperation between countries, peoples, regions and continents, for the good of humanity.

With the advance of technology and development throughout the world, there is a tendency to overlook a very basic truth: Society can survive without many things – diamonds, gold, zinc, oil and other minerals and resources – but cannot exist without water and health.

International requirements and regulations

The WHO, composed of 194 member states and with more than 150 regional offices across six regions, was established in 1948 with the objective, as stated in its constitution, of "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health."

The WHO constitution lists such activities as directing and coordinating authority on international health work, establishing and maintaining effective collaboration with the governments, international organizations, professional groups and such other institutions as may be deemed appropriate; assisting governments, upon request, in strengthening health services, and furnishing technical assistance and, in emergencies, necessary aid upon the request or acceptance of governments.

On March 11, 2020, after having maintained, since December 2019, that the coronavirus epidemic constituted a "public health emergency of international concern," the WHO declared it to have developed into a pandemic, considering its global spread.

The process for dealing with the international spread of diseases was set down in the WHO's 2005 "International Health Regulations" (IHR), based on the experience of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic in China in the 1980s.

These regulations serve as the basis for all WHO activity in the present pandemic. Their purpose is "to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade." They also "provide the legal basis for important health documents applicable to international travel and transport and sanitary protections for the users of international airports, ports, and ground crossings."

While the IHR places a moral obligation on states to provide all relevant public health information and to report within 24 hours any event that possibly constitutes an infectious disease, from the international legal point of view, the IHR are not mandatory and have the status of recommendations only. As such, they are basically dependent on the willingness of states to cooperate by providing, in good faith, open, accurate and timely information.

Breaches of the IHR do not lead to sanctions, and given the non-binding nature of recommendations, there are no direct legal consequences for their disregard.

An additional, serious international issue is the question of the advisability and effectiveness of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing outbreaks of coronavirus.

According to a WHO travel advisory dated Feb. 29:

Evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities."

Clearly, this issue is connected to considerations of human rights in applying restrictions on travel and trade and has already brought about claims that such restrictions may constitute violations of the basic rights of the public to travel freely.

This question was discussed in a legal opinion by an Australian law firm published on Feb. 17, entitled "Legal consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on contracts: force majeure and frustration":

"Many states have reacted with robust mitigation measures, including closing borders, implementing a range of travel bans and engaging a myriad of internal domestic health and wellbeing procedures.

"We are already seeing impacts of COVID-19 (and the mitigation measures) on domestic and international trade and commerce, capital flows, tourism, and migration.

"In a world where markets and economies are intrinsically linked, where corporations and supply chains operate across hundreds of borders, and where the world is connected financially, digitally and socially like never before, a pandemic (or anything close to that) presents a significant financial and economic risk."

Corona in the Middle East

With such an immense challenge to the sustainability and maintenance of life due to the present pandemic, the countries and peoples of the Middle East have no choice but to bridge the political, religious and historic gaps between them.

Health, like water, won't wait for peace to emerge. But through cooperation and mutual acknowledgment of the dangers inherent in the spread of contagion to their populations, states and peoples must work together.

As stated by the Israeli director of "EcoPeace Middle East," Gidon Bromberg, in an interview with the Al-Monitor website:

"The global coronavirus outbreak is … a stark reminder of the need to deepen regional cooperation on environmental issues. Building walls and barriers misleads the public into thinking that one side can successfully disengage from the other … The science of ecology and biology is there to remind us that we can never disengage from a shared environment."

Similarly, an article titled "History of Cooperation in Health and Medicine Between Israel and Palestine," published in a 2008 report of the "Palestinian/Israeli Health Initiative" by Susan J. Blumenthal and Stephanie Safdi, states:

"Cooperation in the health field is part of a broader spectrum of people-to-people exchanges that operate in the region to build trust and understanding while delivering needed services in spite of a tense political climate. Just as diseases can cross borders easily today, so can solutions, making health an important bridge for building partnerships, trust and cooperation among Palestinians and Israelis."

As such, the struggle against the spread of the coronavirus requires that all sides set aside hostility, suspicion, incitement and hatred, in favor of building mutual confidence, regional and international unity, assistance and cooperation.

Precedents for such cooperation in the sphere of water may be found in several of the documents of the Middle East peace negotiation process between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians:

• The 1991 Madrid Middle East Peace Conference established a Multilateral Water Resources Working Group chaired by the United States, with Japan and the European Union as co-organizers.

• The 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, in its third annex dealing with cooperation in economic and development programs, established a water development program for cooperation and management of water resources.

• The 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty contains a special Annex II devoted to water, establishing a bilateral regime for regulating summer and winter flows, storage and counter-pollution measures.

• Similarly, the 1995 Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement ("Oslo II"), Annex III, Article 40, acknowledged Palestinian water rights and set out an Israeli-Palestinian supervisory regime for freshwater management, sewage control and sustainable usage of the available resources.

In these instruments, the Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians acknowledged the dire shortage of water and the need to develop additional sources through regional and international cooperation and joint pollution prevention.

In the field of contagious diseases, the basis for cooperation between the Palestinians and Israel was set out in the same 1995 Interim Agreement between them. In Article 17 of the third annex to this agreement – the Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs – Israel and the PLO agreed and committed themselves to "exchange information regarding epidemics and contagious diseases, [to] cooperate in combating them and … develop methods for the exchange of medical files and documents."

They also agreed that "the health systems of Israel and of the Palestinian side will maintain good working relations in all matters, including mutual assistance in providing first aid in cases of emergency, medical instruction, professional training and exchange of information."

In fact, over the years, Israeli and Palestinian health professionals have been collaborating effectively to prevent and treat disease. A review of collaborative projects in the 1990s published by experts at Al-Quds University and the JDC-Brookdale and JDC-Israel institutes in Jerusalem states:

"Over two years the Israeli and Palestinian researchers studied 148 cooperative projects that brought together 67 mostly non-governmental organizations and some 4,000 Palestinians and Israelis in the field of health care and disease prevention. Most participants in these health programs – Jews, Muslims, and Christians with secular and religious backgrounds and left-wing and right-wing personal views – declared that they were very satisfied with the outcome and wanted to continue working together."

In 2005, the two medical assistance organizations – the Palestinian Red Crescent Society and Israel's Magen David Adom – signed a Memorandum of Understanding and an agreement on operational arrangements aimed at enhancing cooperation when carrying out their respective humanitarian mandates, facilitating movement of ambulances and patients, exchanging information, knowledge and experience, and cooperation in blood-bank issues.

While the extent of Palestinian-Israeli health collaboration has wavered over the years due to travel limitations, security issues and political tensions between the respective leaderships and peoples, the realization that health and medical collaboration is nevertheless essential and often vital has always existed and comes to the fore in crisis situations such as the current one.

With the current outset and progression of the coronavirus pandemic in the Middle East, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, in a phone conversation with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas concerning the pandemic, called for the two sides to cooperate to confront the disease. "The world is dealing with a crisis that does not distinguish between people or where they live," stated Rivlin. "The cooperation between us is vital to ensure the health of both Israelis and Palestinians…. Our ability to work together in times of crisis is also testament to our ability to work together in the future for the good of us all."

In a March 11 article in the Christian Science Monitor titled, "'Something human': Mideast fight against virus elicits rare unity," the newspaper's Israel correspondent, Joshua Mitnick, recalled previous instances of cooperation between Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian health authorities through the establishment, 15 years ago, of an organization to promote joint public health initiatives – the Middle East Consortium on Infectious Disease Surveillance. The organization sponsored joint epidemiological training for doctors and nurses and promoted research collaboration and a regional network of public health professionals.

Regarding current cooperation to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, Mitnick states:

"Palestinian health-care professionals have received training in Israeli hospitals, Israeli labs have analyzed Palestinian COVID-19 diagnostic tests, and doctors on both sides are sharing data.

"Despite decades of arguing over where to draw a border, the spread of COVID-19 has highlighted how Israel and the Palestinian areas in the West Bank are in fact one unit in the battle to preserve public health. Handling the challenge requires the sides to collaborate and resist the tendency to focus first on the political."

The collaboration on the coronavirus outbreak includes the health ministries of both governments, along with the Israeli military liaison. Israel in recent days delivered 250 virus test kits to the West Bank and held training sessions for Palestinian medical workers on how to protect themselves. Israel's Civil Administration, the military-run authority in Palestinian areas of the West Bank, promised to supply medical equipment and training as needed.

Admitting the potential for enhancing positive relations between Israelis and Palestinians, Israeli Health Ministry Associate Director-General Dr. Itamar Grotto, in referring to the cooperation, confirmed that "this is being done because we don't have another choice. We have to work together. If you are looking for a positive effect of this event, you could point to this."

With the realization of the vital importance of cooperation, collaboration, openness, good faith and the genuine need to protect and heal the populations of the area in the face of the Corona pandemic, it is to be hoped that this will lead the way to a greater realization that good neighborly relations have the potential to enhance mutual trust and confidence between Palestinians and Israelis.

Continued incitement to hatred, whether through electronic and social media or by senior Palestinian leaders through such mechanisms as Twitter, even at such an important time as the present, has the potential to prejudice and undermine the sincere efforts by all the professional medical authorities on both sides to defeat the virus, for the benefit of Palestinians, Israelis and the whole region.

Alan Baker is director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. This article was first published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The post Israel, the Palestinians, coronavirus and peace appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"Foodstuffs originating in the territories occupied by the State of Israel must bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Any reaction to the European Union policy of labeling products manufactured in Israeli settlements should consider the following points:

The EU-directed policy requiring member states to label products made in Israeli settlements is intended to harm Israel and Israel only, as a distinct political action and as a means of pressuring Israel politically.

This measure has no substantive connection with whether settlement products meet EU and individual state sanitary, health, hygienic, production, packaging, cleanliness, or other quality standards. It is a purely selective, discriminatory and political imposition.

The EU labeling policy is based on a unilateral EU premise that Israel's settlements are contrary to international law. This premise runs counter to other relevant legal opinions as to the legitimacy of Israel's settlement policy in accordance with the accepted international norms regarding the administration of territory. Additionally, and more importantly, the issue of Israel's settlements is an agreed negotiating issue between Israel and the PLO, pursuant to the Oslo Accords. Thus, the EU labeling directive is tantamount to interference in, and prejudgment of an agreed negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians.

The EU labeling requirement is an overt, political measure strengthening the already existing links between the EU and the predominantly European Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. It represents full identification of the EU and its member states with the aims of the BDS movement to undermine Israel and to weaken the relations between European countries and Israel.

The selective and discriminatory EU labeling policy directed solely against Israel blatantly ignores the numerous situations in the world where states administering territories have transferred hundreds and thousands of their own citizens into the territories they are administering, such as Turkey in Northern Cyprus, Morocco in the occupied territory of Western Sahara, Russia in occupied Ukrainian territory, and the like. This is indicative of an acute double standard in EU policies, raising pertinent questions regarding the real motivation behind such policy.

This selective and discriminatory EU labeling policy is both immoral and hypocritical, driven by manipulation and political pressure by those within the EU who have consistently acted to push member states to interfere in the Middle East dispute and take biased and unilateral positions intended to undermine the integrity of the peace negotiations in a manner directed at harming Israel.

The EU labeling policy, in effect, cancels any bona fide European pretension to participate in the peace negotiation process between Israel and the Palestinians. Cooperating with the EU labeling directive means that the EU has taken sides and has prejudged one of the central negotiating issues – that of settlements – which is still an open issue on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating table.

EU member states that support and implement the discriminatory labeling policy will, in fact, by taking such a biased and discriminatory position, remove themselves from any cycle of involvement in the peace process, and will, in effect, be sabotaging the process and damaging the integrity and bona fides of the negotiations.

The EU policy undermines the EU status as one of the signatories to the Oslo Accords, together with the leaders of the United States, Russia, Norway, Egypt and Jordan; the United Nations also endorsed the Accords. It also undermines the status of the EU as a member of the Middle East Quartet, together with the UN, Russia and the United States.

Self-respecting European states that genuinely believe in the importance of advancing the Israel-Palestinian peace negotiation process cannot identify with or implement such a discriminatory measure intended to harm Israel. Even-handed and fair-minded states will not allow themselves to be manipulated by politically-driven elements within the EU seeking to weaken Israel, the integrity of the peace process, and their own interests.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The European Union labels itself biased appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.