In recent weeks, Justice Minister Gideon Sa\u2019ar, with the support of Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, wisely decided to defer Israel\u2019s joining the Istanbul Convention \u2013 a treaty that would subject Israel to the review of a hostile international commission and potentially tilt the scales in a wide variety of domestic policies from immigration to religious matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In response, Bar-Ilan University\u2019s Rackman Center, which had long lobbied for the treaty and stands to gain financially from its adoption, has taken to the pages of this paper to accuse groups that pointed out the convention\u2019s problems \u2013 of which the Kohelet Policy Forum has been proud to be among \u2013 as \u201cliars\u201d who actually support violence against women. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We are not concerned about such ad hominem attacks, but it is important to explain why the Istanbul Convention is so dangerous. First, it does nothing to prevent violence against women in Israel. Only Israeli domestic legislation can do that. Violence against women should be dealt with by tougher penalties and better enforcement, not through international virtue signaling. Any useful ideas in the convention can and should be discussed and adopted on its own merit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no evidence that joining the convention reduces violence. Indeed, sex offenses against women in some countries like Sweden have spiked rapidly since they joined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nor is there any diplomatic imperative to joining the treaty. Unlike UN bodies, which enjoy universal membership, this treaty was designed by and for a regional organization, the Council of Europe (CoE). Israel\u2019s absence would not be noted as the CoE struggles to get or keep its own members on board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Joining the treaty would expose a wide variety of Israeli social policies to scrutiny by the treaty\u2019s monitoring arm, known by its acronym GREVIO. Anti-Israel bias has turned many international monitoring mechanisms, like the UN Human Rights Council, into yet another arena for condemning Israel for \u201cthe occupation.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Will GREVIO be different? One, the serving commissioner, Rachel Eapen Paul, worked for many years for a BDS-promoting NGO. Just last month \u2013 while a GREVIO member \u2013 she addressed a convention of a radically anti-Israel organization that condemns Israel\u2019s \u201cethnic cleansings\u201d and \u201ccolonial policies\u201d in Jerusalem. At the conference, she shared a stage with a delegate who explained that \u201cPalestinian women suffer from double violence: violence coming from Israeli occupation, and internal violence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If this is how GREVIO members conduct themselves while they are still hoping Israel will agree to their jurisdiction, imagine what happens when it actually joins?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Istanbul Convention supporters point out that Israel has already joined other human rights treaties, including ones dealing with women\u2019s rights. However, most human rights treaties allow for countries to make \u201creservations,\u201d that is, to join without having to agree to all of the broad and ambiguous provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Countries like the US routinely make reservations to ensure that treaty commitments are not used as a non-democratic backdoor to legislating domestic policy. Indeed, when Israel joined the other women\u2019s rights conventions, it filed reservations making clear that this should not affect various aspects of Israel\u2019s religious status quo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is not possible with Istanbul, which under Article 78 provides that \u201cno reservation may be made in respect of any provision of this convention,\u201d with certain minor exceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This makes the Rackman Center\u2019s attempt to minimize the danger of the provisions on asylum, (Articles 60 and 61) disingenuous. Those provisions would require Israel to entertain asylum claims not just for foreigners fleeing political or ethnic persecution, but also for all those who claim they have suffered gendered violence. As the only country in the Middle East to join the treaty, the implications are potentially vast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Justice Ministry recognizes this problem and intends to declare Israel regard these provisions as not imposing new asylum obligations. But with Istanbul\u2019s ban on reservations, such \u201cdeclarations\u201d cannot have legal effect, and are just political window dressing to ease its adoption by the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The treaty\u2019s supporters engage in gaslighting and deception to defend it. For example, the Council of Europe\u2019s official \u201cfact sheet\u201d on the convention claims that \u201cTraditions and values are not under threat. The convention only states traditions, culture or religion cannot be used as a justification for actions of violence against women.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But here is the actual language of Article 12(1): \u201cParties shall take necessary measures to promote changes in the social and cultural patterns of behavior of women and men with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices\u201d that might reflect \u201cstereotyped roles for women and men.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CoE\u2019s official commentary makes clear that countries that join are \u201crequired\u201d to change the \u201cmentality and attitudes\u201d of their citizenry. This is a totalitarian and illiberal measure, so it\u2019s perhaps not surprising that the CoE nakedly lies about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This could have vast implications for almost every aspect of religious life. Both Judaism and Islam take differences between sexes seriously. This could mean the end of religious girls\u2019 army exemptions, government funding of women\u2019s mikvaot<\/em> (ritual baths), partitions in synagogues, matrilineal descent \u2013 any separate treatment of men and women. Israel\u2019s policies in these matters are idiosyncratic among European states, and unlikely to find sympathy among them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Rackman Center notes approvingly that the US and Canada have not joined the treaty because it conflicts with their domestic values of federalism. But then why should Israel not have just as much justification in protecting its own deeply seated domestic features that might conflict with the treaty?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, groups lobbying for the convention fail to disclose how much they have to gain from its adoption. Article 9 would require Israel to financially \u201csupport\u201d NGOs dealing with such issues and make them \u201cpartners\u201d in its implementation. That would be good news for the Rackman Center \u2013 and would also make it likely that a variety of pro-BDS organizations would label themselves as advocates of Palestinian women\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Israel failed to fund or even recognize them, they would appeal to the international community \u2013 invoking the Istanbul Convention. This is not conjecture. After Defense Minister Benny Gantz recently classified six Palestinian NGOs as terror groups, two United Nations senior experts on women\u2019s rights last month joined a denunciation of Israel, claiming it was picking on human rights activists. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There are many more problems hidden in the convention\u2019s long text \u2013 and no improved ability to protect women. Sa\u2019ar was right to shelve it. But given how much they stand to gain, its proponents are unlikely to stop their disinformation campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n