Home

Gabriela Shalev, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, spoke on March 23 at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of the three challenges facing Israel and democracy: terrorism and asymmetric warfare; Iran and the pursuit of nuclear weapons; and the peace process with the Palestinians.

Shalev told the crowd of about 125 that Israel is hoping after Passover for a relaunch of proximity talks that will pave the way for bilateral talks. "We believe the only way to achieve peace and security in the Middle East is sitting and negotiating in bilateral talks, not through mediators, be it the United Nations or the United States," she said.

With a nod to President Woodrow Wilson as one of the forefathers of the modern United Nations, Shalev, self-described as "a law professor by profession and by passion, an ambassador by circumstance," said that she arrived in New York 18 months ago looking forward to being part of the United Nations and sharing Israel's accomplishments with the global community.

What she found was not quite the politics or diplomacy that Wilson's dream of a global organization to secure peace and moderate disputes might have predicted. "More often diplomacy at the U.N. can be described as the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy," she said.

With that, she launched into a discussion of terrorism and asymmetric warfare, the first challenge facing Israel. Traditionally, international laws of war have been designed to protect unarmed civilians, and it assumes belligerent actions between disciplined armies wearing uniforms. Today, by contrast, state armies must respond to a new form of warfare that is invasive, non-state, and involves blending in with unarmed civilians and using them as human shields. Such warfare also deems terrorism against civilians a legitimate tool of war.

Accompanying this type of warfare is what Shalev called "lawfare," defined by Major General Charles Dunlap who coined the expression as "a cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents." Shalev noted that one of the most egregious examples of lawfare, the exploitation of law for political gain in a way that compromises with or even supports terror, is the report of the fact-finding committee on the Gaza conflict known as the Goldstone report.

In defense of Israel, she raised the eight years during which Hamas launched rocket attacks that intentionally targeted Israel civilians, who had barely 15 seconds to find shelter as rockets slammed into schools, homes, and offices. "The international community did nothing, the U.N. Human Rights Council remained silent and didn't investigate," she said. She added that the Israeli response, which aimed to put end to rocketing and terrorism, was proportionate. "I can't imagine another nation restraining itself for eight years," she said.

Shalev noted that during the Gaza war, Israel tried to distinguish between Hamas and civilians but recognized that mistakes were made. She referred to the tragic loss by Israel-trained doctor Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish of his daughters and also mentioned Israeli soldiers killed by friendly fire. "This is why, immediately after the fighting ended, Israel launched over 100 investigations," she said, based on information the military received from NGOs and other reports.

The investigations found that Hamas soldiers hid among civilians and launched attacks from schools, hospitals, and mosques, yet only Israel was criticized by other nations who, she said, were "exploiting international law and the organs of the U.N. to promote an anti-Israel agenda." They gave a blank check to Hamas, she suggested, and ignored Israel's extensive effort to save civilian lives by dropping fliers and making telephone calls to endangered areas.

Shalev was critical about the United Nations report on the Gaza war. "The Goldstone report cherry picks information to fix its predetermined and [baseless] conclusions. It uses the language of international law to demonize Israel," she said. Furthermore, she added, it libels Israel's democracy and its military and denies Israel its right to self-defense. She concludes, "If international law is to be used to confront terrorism, it must be used appropriately."

The second challenge that Shalev treated was Iran. Emphasizing that the Iranian people are not Israel's enemies, she said, "The pursuit of a nuclear bomb and long-range missiles aimed at Israel endangers not just the Middle East but the whole world."

Shalev noted that the mullahs have used diplomacy to buy more time to pursue nuclear weapons, and she expressed agreement with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who has said that the alternatives to sanctions are far worse than the sanctions themselves.

"Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iran regime are unacceptable to everyone," she said, adding that Western diplomats are working to convince Chinese and Russians of the importance of sanctions. "Imagine that the Iranian regime has nuclear weapons," she said, reminding the audience that the Iranian government calls openly for Israel to be wiped off the map and provides training to Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, groups that have killed Americans and countless others. "We must pursue sanctions while keeping all other options on the table," she said.

As to the potential for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, Shalev said, "Peace remains the strategic objective as well as the desire of the people of Israel. We will pursue peace any time with anyone." She noted that the existing stalemate is dangerous for the region because it strengthens extreme forces that oppose negotiations. "We must move forward to a peace process to create two states, two peoples living side by side in peace, security, and prosperity," she said. "We need honest negotiations to settle all the issues that divide us: Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. We are willing to talk about everything without preconditions."

Shalev also expressed hope that the recent problems with the United States have been solved and that proximity talks will resume. She suggested that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's willingness to impose constraints on settlements and on new building permits should not be belittled, but added, "The policy of restraint does not and never applied to the municipal borders of Jerusalem. It is our eternal capital, no government ever put restrictions on building there. We will continue to ensure that Jerusalem is an open city, where Jews, Arabs, and Christians can live together and have access to religious sites."

As she finished her prepared text, she said that, despite these challenges, "we Israelis will persevere because we are confident that our values will one day achieve peace for our children, grandchildren, and all in our region. There will be progress and setbacks, but I would rather lose in a cause that will some day win than win in a cause that will some day lose."

The first question from the audience was about why every European country except Macedonia voted in favor of or abstained from voting on the General Assembly's follow-up resolution to the Goldstone report.

Shalev noted that the initial resolution three months earlier had 18 nations voting against it and 44 abstaining; it gave Israel and the Palestinians three months to undertake "independent, credible investigations" into serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed during the Gaza conflict.

Regarding the second resolution, where only 8 voted against and 33 abstained, Shalev noted that the European Union did not want to have a split, and the Palestinians "were very clever, had a more moderate proposal, and did not cross any red lines in the eyes of Europe. They did not endorse the Goldstone report and did not call upon the Security Council to take any actions. It was more evenhanded, and I think this was the reason very few were supporting our position."

She noted that since that February resolution Israel has provided two long reports investigating what took place. In contrast, she called the Palestinians' report "very hollow."

A member of Princeton's class of 1959 asked about changes in language regarding policy on Iran -- from "crippling sanctions" to "biting sanctions" -- after the incident with Vice President Joe Biden. Shalev confirmed the language changes and noted efforts to convince China and Russia, who have changed their language regarding sanctions, to support them.

A Princeton sophomore asked why many countries at the United Nations seem to have it in for Israel and, more specifically, why much of the U.N. is trying to undermine Israel's right to defend itself?

Shalev reported that when President Shimon Peres asked the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during his recent trip to Israel why Israel is treated in such a discriminatory manner by the United Nations, Ban, who is very reticent, explained that the U.N. is not a homogeneous body. Shalev expanded on this idea, describing the three parts of the United Nations: the General Assembly, which is always against Israel -- "something we have to live with," she said; the Security Council; and the secretariat.

The General Assembly includes a mix of countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel, newly liberated nations that do not know what democracy is, and countries in the Arab League or who are nonaligned.

The Security Council has five permanent members, each of which has veto power, and 10 nonpermanent members. "Think where Israel would be without the veto power of the United States," she says. Shalev is invited to the Security Council about every three months or so when the Palestinian situation comes up. She finds herself there sitting opposite Lebanon's representative and notes that in a couple of months Lebanon, where Hezbollah is part of the government, will be presiding.

In the secretariat, she said that some good dialogue took place before the Goldstone report, which created a very different atmosphere.

Then she noted that despite the overt discrimination against Israel, in private meetings the tone is very different. Ambassadors of moderate Arab countries have told her privately that Israel must destroy the Hamas infrastructure in Gaza, and they have said similar things about Iran.

So why the public discrimination? She attributed it, first of all, to a lack of awareness and knowledge. "People do not know what Israel is about. They have the image of an occupying power, and our politics are not helping," she said, adding that Israel's hasbara, or public relations, is not as good as that of the Palestinians. "They use cynical modes in order to present their case and show how bad the humanitarian crisis is in Gaza," she said.

Although Shalev expressed understanding that one does not negotiate with friends, but with enemies, she explained why Israel will not negotiate with Hamas until they denounce violence, accept that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, and accept previous agreements. "I don't think anyone can think about talking with someone who says they want to annihilate Israel and acts according to these statements," she said.

To a question about whether the United States' extensive foreign aid gives it the right to advise Israel, Shalev's answer was no. "I believe that every country is making its own strategic decisions and calculations," she said. "When the United States decides to provide military and other aid to Israel, they know this is what serves their interests in the Middle East. We are the only democracy and the only country in the Middle East that shares values with the United States."

Shalev suggested that the current issues between the United States and Israel were still differences between family and friends. "It is not the easiest time between the United States and Israel, and I hope better times and more understanding will come," she said.