At this critical time, Israel could do with a few more international friends. The recently published Goldstone Report concluded that “serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel in the context of its military operations in Gaza from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.” It is against this backdrop that we meet with Ron Prosor, Israeli Ambassador to the UK, on the morning of a controversial speaking engagement organised by the university’s International Affair Society. Mr Prosor’s two years as Ambassador have not seen him shy away from having his opinions heard. When we meet him, he is still smarting from the failure of the Israeli team to qualify for the South African 2010 World Cup. “I am very disappointed! There are Israeli players in teams all over the world but it didn’t seem to come together for our national team.”
We then move on to the somewhat more serious topic of the Goldstone report.
When asked, Mr Prosor said that Israel were “confronting, but not engaging” with the findings of the report which he believes not only “promotes terror but allows Hamas to get away with murder.”
He also contested the validity of the report on the grounds that it was endorsed by “anti-democratic dictatorships” such as Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia who are part of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. He likened the situation to “Jack the Ripper leading a disciplinary inquiry at Scotland Yard.” He believes that the judicial system of the UNHRC is being abused by these dictatorships, adding that the ruling set a precedent. “Gadaffi will be taking British soldiers and officers to court next. This is simply warfare through lawfare.”
Mr Prosor went further and insisted that Goldstone himself, who headed the report, called it one-sided as it did not look closely enough at the part played by Hamas. Hamas was brought to power in January 2006. The governments of Canada, the United States, Japan and the European Union describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, with the British government listing its military wing as a terrorist organisation. Although Hamas dispute that the conflict with Israel is “not religious but political”, some believe that their Charter and other statements made by their leaders are influenced by anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
We then moved on to discuss how Israel is progressing on the path to peace. “Over 80% would want peace tomorrow morning. When there are serious leaders on the other side, Israel and the Israeli people are willing to compromise to achieve it.” The ambassador then pointed to specific examples where Israel has worked with other nations to establish peace agreements. In 1994, Israel established a peace treaty with Jordan which Prosor says demonstrates the willingness of Israel to work towards peace. However, Israel does not want peace at any cost, stating that “we do not want the peace of the graveyard.”
He also said that although Israel wants to work towards peace with Palestine, this is not made easy due to the number of political entities who are involved. Although there is still no progress to begin talks with Hamas who currently govern the Gaza Strip, there is a greater willingness to talk with the Palestinian Authorities who control the West Bank. In 2005, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of Palestine. Prosor went on to say that “instead of creating the model we hoped they would, it became a launching pad. 8,000 missiles flew into Israel. Hamas used the Palestinian population as a human shield. And it is only when we say ‘We cannot sustain this’ that we are forced to act.”
Mr Prosor has not been without controversy himself in recent years. In mid-2008, he claimed in The Telegraph that universities in Britain were creating a ‘climate of hatred’ towards Israel. He still stands by those statements, saying that “fringe groups are spreading ideas which are oxymoronic by nature. When you are in a place where ideas are formed, the idea of a boycott is oxymoronic. There should not be a one-sided debate. On certain campuses, Jewish students feel uncomfortable and threatened in their own university, which is wrong”.
Yet Mr Prosor does not feel that limiting the political controversy of speakers at universities necessarily aids this cause. In the wake of the ‘pro-platform’ debate at last years’ AGM, Mr Prosor promoted cautious freedom in selecting speakers for the university. “It needs to be allowed within certain parameters. So long as it doesn’t go beyond incitement and lead to loss of life – I would always opt for free flow of ideas. Yet someone like David Irving, the holocaust denier? That I cannot allow. Someone who creates his argument through complete fallacy.”
Mr Prosor himself was called to step down from a speaking engagement last year at the University of Edinburgh, amidst claims he was ‘using the university to defend crimes against humanity’, but rejected such calls. In his evening speaking event for the IAS, Mr Prosor faced similar lively debate when taking questions from the floor, and students attending had to walk through a group of ‘Free Palestine’ protesters. Amidst questions of Israeli ‘foul-play’ with regard to alleged war crimes, human rights abuses and nuclear arms possession, he urged students to ‘get away from the slogans’ in pursuit of the truth about Israel. Yet Mr Prosor took a cautiously optimistic view on Israel’s future, describing the current period as ‘the best of times and the worst of times’ but suggesting there to be a ‘window of opportunity… for the first time we have countries who would never engage with this debate willing act as they never would have done in the past. If there are enough on each side who really want peace, we will get there. We have no alternative”.
Mr Prosor’s commitment to getting Israeli issues into the UK political foreground cannot be considered anything less than tireless. He has been much more active than his predecessors, particularly using the media to ensure his voice is heard. Following his speech in Bristol and discussion with Epigram, we can be sure that he has sparked debate in the university. The question remains, however, as to what conclusions will be drawn from this debate.
Laura Walters
Jenny Flack
02/11/2009
