The Amateur
Computerist
Winter 2023 The Question of Palestine at the UN Volume 37 No. 1
Table of Contents
Articles from 2008 to 2019
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 1
Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza Crisis . . . . . Page 2
Response to Israeli Attacks on Gaza. . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
The World Has Been Watching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6
Israel Attempts to Justify Its Attack on Gaza . . . . . Page 8
Need to End Israeli Siege of Gaza. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10
Principles to Guide a Palestinian-Israeli Peace . Page 12
Fr. Brockmann In the Shadow of Deep Crises. . . Page 15
Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements . . . . Page 17
Questions Legality of Israeli Occupation . . . . . . . Page 20
In Memory of Dumisani Kumalo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22
On Israel’s Annexation of Palestinian Territory . . Page 23
Introduction
In 1947, the United Nations played a major role
in partitioning the British Mandate for Palestine into
an Arab and a Jewish section. The Jewish section soon
declared itself the State of Israel which the UN sup-
ported. This issue of the Amateur Computerist is a
collection of articles written between 2008 and 2019,
highlighting activities at the United Nations about the
Israeli/Palestinian Question originating from the 1947
partition. That question remains unsolved.
Historically, the land of Palestine goes back to
pre-biblical times. In modern times, the area was ruled
by the Ottoman Empire, from the 16
th
to the 20
th
cen-
tury. In that time, being mostly inhabited by Muslim
Arabs, there were always some Jewish and Christian
communities. The Ottoman Empire collapsed by the
end of WWI. The League of Nations then facilitated
Britain and France to make colonies out of the Middle
East Ottoman provinces as League of Nations Man-
dates. The British mandate for Palestine was meant to
be a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status
of a fully independent nation. (See:
.org/en/situation-in-occupied-palestine-and-israel
/history.) Britain encouraged Jewish immigration to
Palestine. Eventually Britain found itself at war with
the indigenous Arab Palestinians and with the Jewish
settlers.
In 1947, Britain was withdrawing from its colo-
nies and announced to the UN that it was going to end
its Mandate and withdraw from Palestine. The UN cre-
ated a Special Committee to prepare for the consider-
ation of the question of the future government of
Palestine. The Special Committee, rather than calling
for a democratic solution based on the inhabitants,
Arab and Jewish and Christian working out a joint
future, recommended a plan of “partition with eco-
nomic union” and an internationalization of Jerusalem.
The Jewish people in Palestine supported the partition
which gave them the majority of the land despite their
being a minority of the population. The Arab people in
Palestine opposed the partition plan. It was imple-
mented against Arab opposition leading to the UN
soon agreeing to the creation of a separate state of
Israel.
In 1948, 750,000 Palestinians living on the land
now called Israel were forced by armed Israelis to flee.
That forced expulsion from their homes and land is
known as the Nakba, meaning catastrophe in Arabic.
(See:
Many of those Palestinians and their descendants still
live in refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank and in
neighboring countries, organized by the United Na-
tions Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
refugees.) In addition to the Nakba, displacement and
dispossession of Palestinians by Israeli government
settlement activity and settler violence is ongoing.
Over the last 75 years, the partition of Palestine
has caused many difficulties that the UN has been call-
ed on to deal with. The articles here document a little
of how poorly the UN did from 2008 to 2019.
There is a need for a broad perspective of what has
gone on in the past 75+ years in order to determine the
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
Page 1
direction for a just solution to the Question of Pales-
tine. That is the purpose of putting together this col-
lection of articles on the UN’s reaction to previous
events in the conflict. There is a need to facilitate dis-
cussion and fresh thinking. We hope this collection of
articles from 2008 to 2019 will contribute to meeting
that need.
[Editor’s Note: On January 17, 2008 Israel increased its blockade
of the Gaza strip by announcing a complete closure of all the land
border crossings into Gaza. A response to that closure was de-
bated on Jan 30 at the UN Security Council. This article about that
debate first appeared in OhmyNews International on Feb. 7,
2008.]
(2008)
Security Council Fails
to Act on Gaza Crisis
‘The Silence Is Deafening,’ Says
Indonesia’s U.N. Ambassador
by Ronda Hauben
“(M)y delegation believes that silence on the
situation in the Middle East is more dangerous than
even meetings where there might be a raising of temp-
eratures and heat,” explained Dumisani Kumalo, the
South African ambassador to the United Nations.
Speaking in the U.N. Security Council discussion
held on Jan. 30,
1
Kumalo was responding to a state-
ment by the British Ambassador Sir John Sawers. The
British ambassador was questioning the usefulness of
the Security Council discussion on the Israeli-Palestin-
ian question.
This exchange followed the events of the previ-
ous week. The Security Council had spent a week
struggling to agree on a non-binding Presidential state-
ment in response to the Israeli closure of all the
border-crossings into the Gaza Strip. Israel’s action
left the Palestinians in Gaza without fresh supplies of
fuel, food or other necessities vital to life upon which
they relied.
By Jan. 29, however, the Council failed to agree
on what such a statement should say and decided to
end their efforts. No statement by the Security Council
would be issued.
The original issue brought before the Council
was Israel’s closing of the border crossings into Gaza.
From the beginning of the discussion, however, the
U.S. framing, focused the statement on the rocket at-
tacks into Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself.
Several members of the Security Council ex-
plained that such an interpretation runs counter to the
obligations of Israel, as an occupying power and that
punishing the whole population of Gaza for what were
the acts of a few is contrary to the tenets of the prohibi-
tion in international law against collective punishment
and disproportionate actions.
In his presentation to the Security Council in its
public discussion on Jan. 22, Le Luong Minh, the am-
bassador from Vietnam said, “(W)e consider the acts
undertaken by the Israeli authorities against Palestinian
civilians, like any act that literally targets the innocent
civilians of a country, to be unjustifiable, even in the
name of security or under any other pretext.”
Speaking in his capacity as the ambassador from
Libya, Giadalla Ettalhi, who held the rotating chair-
manship of the Council in January, said, “We do not
believe these practices against civilians can be justified
on any pretext; nor can they be equated with any other
acts.”
Stating a similar view, Ambassador Michel
Kufando of Burkina Faso said, “It is not for us today to
engage in a rhetorical exercise but to concretely con-
sider through a careful review of the situation what the
Council and the international community can do to put
an end to the blockade of Gaza. This blockade is un-
acceptable because it holds hostage a whole population
subject to all types of privation.”
Several other ambassadors who spoke at the Jan.
22 Security Council discussion said that the right of a
nation to self defense is not intended as a license to
harm or blockade a civilian population as Israel is
doing in Gaza.
The U.S. framing of the situation, however, is
that Israel has disengaged from Gaza and therefore is
no longer an occupying force in Gaza. Israel is being
attacked by terrorists in Gaza. Israel has the right to
self defense against Gaza. Though the U.S. framing
says that Israel should, when feasible, minimize the
harm to civilians, the U.S. does not propose any means
of imposing such an obligation on Israel.
Others on the Security Council disagree with
how the U.S. frames the situation in Gaza. The South
African ambassador said that though Israel had with-
drawn from Gaza, “the territory of Gaza remains under
de facto Israeli occupation. Israel controls Gaza’s air
space and Gaza’s territorial waters. By virtue of its
illegal occupation Israel continues to be bound by the
Page 2
Fourth Geneva Convention.”
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of
1949, states, “No protected person may be punished
for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
Collective penalties and likewise all measures of in-
timidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is
prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and
their property are prohibited.”
Panama’s Ambassador Ricardo Arias said that
“the State of Israel has the right to defend itself, how-
ever, measures for self-defense should be carried out
in a restrained manner that is proportionate to the
threat.” He further explained that “the Actions of the
Government of Israel violate all humanitarian stan-
dards including the most basic rules of international
law.”
Participating in the discussion but not a member
of the Security Council, the Syrian Ambassador Bashar
Ja’afari challenged the notion that Israel is not the occ-
upying power in Gaza. He said that Israel’s claim, “it
has withdrawn from Gaza is a blatant distortion of the
facts. Israel controls international borders and all cros-
sing points … . It controls the flow of food, medicines,
water and electricity. In short, Israel, the occupying
power as defined under international law has trans-
formed Gaza into a sealed ghetto and the West Bank
into besieged Bantustans.”
The Syrian ambassador attributed Israel’s belief
that it does not have to abide by the 1949 Fourth
Geneva Convention to the failure of the Security
Council and the international community to condemn
Israel.
At the Security Council discussion on Jan. 30,
the Indonesian ambassador said “The humanitarian
crisis in Gaza is dire and unacceptable. The people of
Gaza have been suffering not only from the border
crossings, but also from repeated military incursions
by Israel.”
“Today,” he explained, “we wish to emphasize
the importance of a common Council response on this
humanitarian catastrophe.”
The South African ambassador added that “The
situation in Occupied Palestine cannot be ignored any
longer. Try as it might, this Security Council cannot
remain silent and hope that the situation will change as
time goes by when 1.5 million residents are left with-
out water, electricity, and basic sewage situations.”
“We have to remember,” Kumalo said, “that the
United Nations, particularly the Security Council, has
a special responsibility in supporting a peaceful
resolution in the conflict in the Middle East.”
The fact that the Council was not able to issue a
statement against the Israeli blockade of Gaza led the
Indonesian ambassador to observe, “It is indeed a
deafening silence.”
Despite the week long effort of consultations,
public meetings, various proposed draft statements,
experts meeting to draft statements and public discus-
sions, the Security Council was not been able to issue
a statement. Why?
One week earlier, on Jan. 23, 14 members of the
Security Council had agreed on a statement in which
the Council said it “expresses deep concern about the
steep deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the
Gaza Strip due to the closure of all the Gaza Strip’s
border crossings.” (Draft PRST on the Middle East,
Jan. 23, 2008 Rev 2.)
The draft statement ended with a call that “all
parties cease all acts of violence including the firing of
rockets into Israeli territory and all activities which are
contrary to international law and endanger civilians.”
A Presidential statement issued by the Security
Council, however, requires the agreement of all 15
members. Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, U.S. Dep-
uty Permanent Representative to the U.N. would not
agree with the statement. Wolfe said that the issue was
that Israel was under siege. “We feel very strongly“ he
told reporters, “that if you are going to address this
situation you can’t look to the last page of a book and
say ‘Gee we don’t like the ending of this story’ without
knowing what preceded it. It’s out of context. It’s not
fair.”
2
The following day, on Thursday, the U.S. delega-
tion introduced a number of elements it wanted to be
included in the statement. At the end of the Thursday
session of the Council, Kumalo told reporters he was
depressed “because we still do not have an agreement
and the way its going its not hopeful.”
On Friday, the U.S. Deputy Ambassador
Alejandro Wolff brought an alternative statement to
the Council.
The deliberations on this statement and the
consideration of modifications to it went on till late in
the evening on Friday. Only a few journalists were still
at the stakeout when the meeting ended and brief
explanations of what had happened were presented by
the few Security Council members willing to speak
with the press. By then the version of the U.S. state-
ment had been modified, but it included a description
of the attacks on Israel as coming from “terrorists” and
Page 3
wording that Israel was suspending its closure of the
crossing points.
Sources describing the Security Council’s re-
sponse to the modified statement on Friday were con-
tradictory. Some sources claimed that 14 members of
the Security Council were prepared to accept the mod-
ified U.S. statement, but that Libya would not agree.
Another source indicated that the British and U.S. am-
bassadors had used a maneuver to make this claim as
other members of the Security Council only agreed to
consider the statement, not to approve it. On Friday
evening the Libyan ambassador said he would send the
draft statement to his government for its response,
which he would present to the Council on Tuesday.
On Jan. 29, Libya offered alternative wording to
modify several aspects of the Friday draft. Libya want-
ed the reference to those who launched the rockets into
Israel as “terrorist groups” removed, but it accepted the
wording condemning the launch of the rockets and
calling for their immediate cessation. Libya objected
to the wording indicating that Israel suspended its
closure, as there had not been evidence this was true.
Journalists were told that the U.S. rejected the
changes and that the Council had ended its effort to
issue a statement.
While the Security Council did not issue a state-
ment about Israel’s closing the border crossings to
Gaza, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable
Rights of the Palestinian People, created by the Gen-
eral Assembly in 1975, explained that “The Bureau
deeply regrets that the Security Council, having con-
sidered the situation at a recent meeting, once again
failed to act in response to the grave situation in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
This Committee of 22 member states and 22
observers created by the U.N.’s General Assembly
demonstrated that it was possible to issue a statement
on the situation in Gaza that is consistent with the
obligations of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.
The statement says: “The Bureau wishes to re-
state its position of condemning the killing of innocent
civilians by both sides, including Israeli operations and
the firing of rockets from Gaza. At the same time, the
Bureau considers it totally unacceptable and unjust that
the entire civilian population of the Gaza Strip is
subjected to a suffocating economic blockade for the
actions of a few militant groups. The Bureau supports
the Palestinian Authority proposal to assume responsi-
bility for the Palestinian side of all of the Gaza Strip’s
border crossings.”
All 15 members of the Security Council had said
they were concerned for the deteriorating situation in
Gaza, it was the U.S. alone that prevented the Council
from issuing a non-binding Presidential statement on
Jan. 23 expressing the concern of the Council. The
U.S. introduced elements for changes in the statement
in the Council and then the following day presented an
alternative statement which changed how the problem
was to be framed. Then it tried to shift the blame to
Libya for the failure of the Council to issue a statement
condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The Security Council, as the South African
Ambassador Kumalo explained, has a special obliga-
tion with regard to peace and security in the Middle
East and particularly with regard to the Israeli-Pales-
tinian conflict. Article 24 of the U.N. Charter confers
on the Security Council the “primary responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and security”
and obliges the Security Council to carry out its duties
on behalf of all the member nations of the U.N. When
the Council is unable to act in an issue so crucial to its
obligations under the U.N. charter, it is failing in its
duties not only on the particular issue, but also in the
obligations it has to all the member nations of the U.N.
This represents a serious problem to be considered by
the member nations.
Notes:
1. See: Security Council Documents:
S/PV.5824 Security Council 5824
th
meeting, Jan.22, 2008, 10 a.m.
S/PV.5824 (Resumption 1) Security Council 5824
th
meeting, Jan.
22, 2008 3 p.m.
S/PV.5827 Security Council 5827, Jan. 30, 2008 10 a.m.
2. Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, U.S. Deputy Permanent
Representative, on the situation in the Middle East, at the Security
Council Stakeout, January 24, 2008.
Page 4
[Editor’s Note: On December 27, 2008, Israel began a 22-day war
in Gaza. This article appeared in OhmyNews International the
next day on December 28, 2008 at: http://english.ohmynews.com
/articleview/article_view.aspmenu=c10400&no=384512
&rel_no=1 (no longer available).]
(2008)
Response to Israeli Attacks
on Gaza
by Ronda Hauben
Reporting from the United Nations, Saturday
night Dec. 27, 2008 through Sunday morning, Dec. 28.
– I arrived at the United Nations around 9:35 p.m.
(EST) after learning that there were to be Security
Council consultations about what is happening in
Gaza. The Security Council consultations were sched-
uled for 10 p.m. (EST).
The Libyan delegation, on behalf of the Arab
League, had asked for a meeting of the Security
Council to respond to the Israeli attacks on Gaza.
Soon after the members arrived, some members
of the delegations told the press that the Security
Council members were working on a statement which
would urge Israel to halt its military operations in
Gaza. Also, the statement was to call for cessation of
rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza.
Another element for the statement was said to be
to call for the opening of the border crossings into
Gaza and unrestricted humanitarian access to the area.
A few others who spoke with the press infor-
mally were quick to point out that the draft effort to
fashion a statement was not something agreed to in any
way yet by the members of the Security Council. The
discussion among the members of the Security Council
was said to be about whether they would hold a
meeting this evening and if so what the meeting would
do.
A representative of one of the delegations said
that his delegation wanted either a statement that all
members of the Security Council agreed on presented
to the press this evening, or else an open meeting
where all members would speak freely.
Five hours after the meeting began, members of
the Security Council emerged from their consultations.
They had indeed agreed on a statement to be read to
the press.
The statement contained several points. These
included:
1) There was serious concern about “the escalation of
the situation in Gaza.”
2) The call for “an immediate halt to all violence.”
3) The call for “all parties to stop immediately all
military activities.”
4) The call for the opening of the border crossings “to
ensure the continuous provision of humanitarian
supplies.”
The statement “stressed the need for the restoration of
calm” toward finding a political solution for the
settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Several of the parties came to speak briefly to the
press after the Security Council issued its statement.
The American ambassador to the UN, Zalmay
Khalilzad, wanted it known that he attributed the root
cause of the problem to Hamas’ rocket attacks on
Israel. He limited the questions he would answer after
being confronted with questions from reporters asking
if what Israel was doing in killing over 200 Palestin-
ians was not a disproportionate response.
Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin indicated
that there were different views among Security Coun-
cil members about what the root cause of the problem
was, but that the bottom line was that the situation in
Gaza had slipped, and that it was important to stop the
bloodshed. He expressed his appreciation that the
matter had been brought to the Security Council as a
result of a decision of foreign ministers, and that a
statement had been issued by the Council.
When asked what the Security Council would do
to follow up on the statement, he said that the state-
ment had been crafted with some understanding by the
Israeli government that it was issued, and he expected
that the parties assumed that there were certain respon-
sibilities given that the Security Council had issued a
statement.
The Palestinian observer at the UN explained that
if Israel didn’t comply, the Arab nations would come
back knocking at the door of the Security Council.
Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said that the
Security Council didn’t have to be in such a rush to
issue a statement.
The French ambassador, Jean-Maurice Ripert,
said that the statement made clear that the border
crossings to Gaza had to be open including having
access allowed to NGOs, diplomats, and journalists.
While the members of the Security Council were
discussing what the Security Council would do, others
at the United Nations presented their view of the
situation.
Page 5
The Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, via his
spokesperson had issued a statement on Saturday, Dec.
27. It contained a general statement about Israel’s
obligation to uphold humanitarian law, and human
rights law, in general condemning “excessive use of
force,” but condemning by name Hamas for ongoing
rocket attacks on Israel. The statement is posted at the
UN.
The President of the General Assembly, Miguel
d!Escoto Brockmann, announced he would cut short
his brief Christmas holiday to return to the UN from
Nicaragua.
His spokesperson, Enrique Yeves, told journal-
ists, “The General Assembly President is extremely
worried about the whole situation. He believes it is
time for the international community to act to prevent
this kind of aggression from Israel against the civilian
population of Palestine.”
“If we fail,” Yeves explained, “we will all be
guilty by omission.”
The president of the General Assembly is follow-
ing very closely the situation in New York, said Yeves,
and he gave journalists a copy of Brockmann’s state-
ment.
The statement expressed in a clear and forthright
manner that he condemned the actions by Israel. The
statement by the president of the General Assembly is:
The behavior by Israel in bombarding Gaza
is simply the commission of wanton ag-
gression by a very powerful state against a
territory that [it] illegally occupies.
Time has come to take firm action if the
United Nations does not want to be rightly
accused of complicity by omission.
The Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip
represent severe and massive violations of
international humanitarian law as defined
in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard
to the obligations of an Occupying Power
and in the requirements of the laws of war.
Those violations include:
Collective punishment – the entire 1.5 mil-
lion people who live in the crowded Gaza
Strip are being punished for the actions of
a few militants.
Targeting civilians – the air strikes were
aimed at civilian areas in one of the most
crowded stretches of land in the world,
certainly the most densely populated area
of the Middle East.
Disproportionate military response – the air
strikes have not only destroyed every po-
lice and security office of Gaza’s elected
government, but have killed and injured
hundreds of civilians; at least one strike
reportedly hit groups of students attempt-
ing to find transportation home from the
university.
I remind all member states of the United
Nations that the UN continues to be bound
to an independent obligation to protect any
civilian population facing massive viola-
tions of international humanitarian law
regardless of what country may be respon-
sible for those violations.
I call on all Member States, as well as
officials and every relevant organ of the
United Nations system, to move expedi-
tiously not only to condemn Israel’s serious
violations, but to develop new approaches
to providing real protection for the Pales-
tinian people.
[Editor’s Note: In early January 2009 the UN continued to fail to
take action addressing the Israeli hostilities in Gaza, This article
about that failure appeared in OhmyNews International on January
6, 2009 at: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view
.asp?menu=c10400&no=384569&rel_no=1. (no longer avail-
able.)]
(2009)
The World Has
Been Watching
The UN and the Failure to Act to
Stop Attack on Gaza
by Ronda Hauben
On the evening of Jan. 3, 2009, the President of
the General Assembly, Father Miguel d!Escoto
Brockmann, arrived at the UN as the Security Council
was preparing to hold a closed door meeting about the
2008 Gaza crisis.
Earlier in the day, Israel had escalated the previ-
ous eight days of bombing of Gaza by beginning a
ground invasion into the territory.
The situation in Gaza is that 1.5 million civilians
are trapped in a virtual prison. For 18 months prior to
the invasion, Israel has blockaded the crossing points
Page 6
into Gaza that it controls and Egypt has closed the one
crossing point it has control over.
Responding to the question from a journalist
about what his reaction was to Israel’s actions in Gaza
and the Israeli ground attack, Brockmann said, “I think
it’s a monstrosity. There’s no other way to name it.”
1
He went on to explain that “once again the world
is watching in dismay the disfunctionality of the
Security Council.” The shame of this, he said, is that
“people are dying.”
Such activity by the Security Council, Brock-
mann said, is “what is responsible for the loss of
prestige and the bad image” that the disfunctionality
results in. “The Security Council,” he explained, “is in
very urgent need of profound reform.”
Subsequent events on Jan. 3 at the Security
Council demonstrated the accuracy of Brockmann’s
description of the current state of the Security Council.
This was the first meeting of the Security Coun-
cil in 2009. Five newly elected nations replaced five
outgoing members. The new members were Turkey,
Mexico, Uganda, Japan and Austria. They replaced
Indonesia, Panama, South Africa, Belgium and Italy.
A problem, however, seemed to be that the newly
elected members did not have the same understanding
of the dynamics and how to deal with them that the
outgoing elected members had learned from their two
years on the council.
While several of the outgoing members had
voiced
2
their commitment to having open meetings of
the Security Council – especially when there was a
dispute that couldn’t be resolved – the new members
and others on the Council allowed the meeting on Jan.
3 to be a closed meeting. The discussion and actions of
the Security Council were only available from second
hand reports.
During a similar meeting of the 2008 Security
Council on Dec. 27-28, one of the outgoing ambassa-
dors, South Africa’s Domisani Kumalo told journalists
that he was insisting on an open meeting if the Security
Council did not, at least, come to an agreed upon
statement for the press.
At the first Security Council meeting in 2009,
however, it is reported that no ambassador insisted on
an open meeting. Hence there was neither an agreed
upon press statement from Council members, nor was
there an open meeting.
Describing the events of the Jan. 3 meeting, the
Egyptian Ambassador, Maged A. Abdelaziz, told the
press that, “we find regrettably that the Security
Council is downgrading its response.”
3
He was refer-
ring to the fact that the U.S. Ambassador Alejandro D.
Wolff would not even agree to make the previous
weekend’s press statement into a Presidential state-
ment. Nor would the U.S. agree to a press statement
like that of the previous Saturday, calling for an
immediate halt to all violence.
Significantly, Israel’s escalation of violence
against Palestinians in Gaza, represented by the Israeli
land invasion, was greeted with official silence at the
first meeting of 2009 of the Security Council. The
Security Council was silent on the fact that the large
number of civilian deaths and injuries and the massive
destruction of civilian targets in Gaza demonstrated
that Israel was committing widespread collective pun-
ishment of civilians in Gaza.
4
During Brockmann’s comments to the press, he
had referred to “other possible steps” that were being
considered.
Some member nations of the UN are pointing to
General Assembly Resolution 377 “Uniting for
Peace”
5
as a procedure to be invoked to respond to the
problem when a permanent member of the Security
Council blocks action on an urgent issue, as the U.S.
did on Jan. 3.
The Uniting for Peace resolution notes that the
blocking of urgent action by a permanent member of
the Security Council does not relieve the members of
the UN of their responsibility under the charter. Under
Article 24 of the UN charter, members of the UN
confer “on the Security Council primary responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and secu-
rity, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this
responsibility the Security Council acts on their be-
half.”
When the Security Council fails to carry out such
duties however, the General Assembly can assume the
responsibility. If the General Assembly is in session, a
meeting is to be called. If the General Assembly is not
in session, as is currently the case, there is a procedure
to call for an Emergency Session, which is to meet
within 24 hours of the request.
There have been press reports that member
nations of the UN, like members of the 57 nations of
the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), or like
members of the 117 non-aligned nations are working
to start the process to call for an emergency meeting of
the General Assembly about the Gaza crisis if the
Security Council continues to be unable to act on the
need for a cease fire and the opening of the border
Page 7
crossings into Gaza.
6
There have been ongoing and growing demon-
strations around the world of people upset about the
lack of action by their governments to find a way to
stop Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. The persistent fail-
ure of the UN Security Council over the past 18
months to stop the siege of Gaza has helped to set the
conditions for the current attack on the Palestinians by
Israel.
Angry demonstrations around the world are
evidence that this inaction is an affront, not only to the
besieged Palestinians but to people around the world
who condemn Israel’s invasion of Gaza. In his com-
ments to the press on Jan. 3, Brockmann said that
“what is really responsible [for the current violent situ-
ation in Gaza –ed.] I think is the unfulfilled resolutions
of the Security Council” with regard to the Palestinian
crisis.
“The world has been watching,” he noted.
Notes:
1. Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by H.E. Mr.
Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63
rd
session of the
General Assembly on the situation in the Middle East, including
the Palestinian question. [Webcast: Archived Video - 7 minutes]
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/stakeout/2009/so09010
3pm2.rm. (No longer available.)
See: also Ronda Hauben “Security Council and Others at UN
Respond to Israeli Attacks on Gaza, Press statement issued by
Security Council after 5 hours of consultations,” OhmyNews
International, Dec. 28, 2008.http://english.ohmynews.com/article
view/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384512&rel_no=1. (No
longer available.)
2. Ronda Hauben, “Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza Crisis:
The Silence is Deafening Says Indonesia’s Ambassador to the
UN,” OhmyNews International, Feb. 7, 2008.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?artic
le_class=16&no=381689&rel_no=1. (No longer available.)
3. Egypt Media Stakeout: Permanent Representative of Egypt,
H.E. Mr. Maged A. Abdelaziz [See: especially Minutes 18:47-
20:52] http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/stakeout
/2009/so090103pm3.rm. (No longer available.)
4. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, states,
“No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she
has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise
all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage
is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their pro-
perty are prohibited.”
5. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/377(V) A 3 November
1950 377 (V). Uniting for Peace.
https://en .wikipedia.org/wiki
/United_Nations_General _Assembly_Resolution_377.
6. Indonesia and Malaysia are two such nations. See: for example,
Abdul Khalik and Lilian Budianto, “RI pushes for UN emergency
meeting” The Jakarta Post, Jakarta.
https://www.thejakartapost
.com/news/2009 /01/06/ri-pushes-un-emergency-meeting.html.
“President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said Monday that Indo-
nesia would continue its political and diplomatic efforts to push
the Security Council to issue a resolution to stop Israeli attacks
and force both sides to return to peaceful dialog to solve the
conflict.”
“But if we can’t get a resolution through the Security Council then
we will use the alternative of an emergency meeting at the
General Assembly to force a cease fire to stop the hostilities that
have claimed many lives,” he told reporters at the Presidential
office.
[Editor’s Note: During Israel’s 2008-2009 military operations in
Gaza, this article appeared in OhmyNews International on January
_view.asp?no=384602&rel_no=1 (no longer available).]
(2009)
Israel Attempts to Justify
Its Attack on Gaza
by Ronda Hauben
In a letter submitted to Ban Ki-moon, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to the
President of the Security Council for the month of
January (S/2009/6, Jan. 6, 2009), Israel informs them
that it has expanded its military operations in the Gaza
Strip. Israel claims this is its right under Article 51 of
the Charter of the United Nations. Israel states that this
is a “defensive military operation” and that it has
begun this military operation only “after exhausting all
other means.”
The letter states “Israel is not at war with the
Palestinian people.” It states that Israel is doing its
“utmost to avoid and minimize civilian casualties and
to take the necessary precautionary measures in
accordance with Israel’s obligations under interna-
tional humanitarian law.” Also Israel claims that it
“makes – and will continue to make every effort to
allow humanitarian relief into the Gaza Strip.”
Describing the nature of Israel’s attack on the
political infrastructure of Gaza, Sarah Leah Whitson,
the Executive Director of the Middle East and North
American Division of Human Rights Watch, in a press
conference at the United Nations, presented a different
view of what Israel is doing. She explained that under
international law only combatants who are actively
engaged in fighting are legitimate subjects of attack.
(Press Conference, Jan. 7, 2009.
1
)
In its bombardment, Israel has targeted the polit-
Page 8
ical and civilian infrastructure such as police stations.
It is Israel’s burden of proof to show that the police
were indeed Hamas militants. Instead, Whitson noted,
Israel targeted police stations “on a blanket basis.”
Similarly, she pointed out, Israel targeted a
Hamas Official at the Ministry of Health, and the
Hamas media broadcasting station.
Whitson maintained that under international law,
the closure of the crossing points into Gaza, the
blockade that Israel and Egypt have participated in
imposing on the people of Gaza, is the imposition of
collective punishment on a civilian population. The
people suffering from the effects of the blockade are
civilians, rather than the effects being restricted to the
combatants Israel claimed it was fighting. Moreover,
Israel, as the occupying power over Gaza, has the
primary responsibility to provide food and medicine
for the people of Gaza, but instead has prevented the
people from having access to the goods and services
necessary for life.
The rationale presented by Israel in its letter to
the United Nations is quite different from the facts.
The claim that its military bombardment of Gaza is
defensive in nature is contrary to its announcement
that it has attacked the political infrastructure of Gaza,
a political infrastructure that was the result of the
Palestinian people voting in January 2006 for Hamas
as its political representatives.
In an interview by UN radio with Richard Falk,
the UN Human Rights Rapporteur on the Occupied
Palestinian territories, about the crisis in Gaza (Inter-
view on Gaza, Jan. 2, 2009.
2
) Falk maintains that the
“maintenance of a blockade on a society is treated as
an act of war.” Imposing such a blockade and then
militarily attacking the people of Gaza, as Israel has
done since Dec. 27, is “a massive and severe violation
of the prohibition on collective punishment which is
contained in Article 33 of the Geneva convention.”
Falk also explains that Israel’s failure to provide
adequate food and medicine for a population that is
under its occupation, is a continuing violation of
Article 55 of the same international treaty.
Falk describes how Hamas adhered to the cease-
fire agreed to in June 2008 by not launching rocket
attacks on Israel, but that Israel broke the cease-fire
agreement by failing to restore humanitarian supplies
as they had agreed to do. (UN radio, Interview with
Richard Falk, Jan. 9, 2009.
3
) Israel is not defending its
own territory from an invasion, but attacking another
political community, one that it has a responsibility to
maintain under humanitarian law. According to Falk,
Israel, by controlling land, sea and air access to Gaza,
is the occupying power in Gaza.
It was not only that Israel failed to allow food,
fuel, and medical supplies into Gaza as it was obliged
to do under its agreement with Hamas, but on Nov. 4,
2008, when much of the world was distracted with the
U.S. election, Israel launched an attack on Gaza,
resulting in at least six deaths. This act of Israel broke
the cease-fire. Hence Israel’s attack on Gaza is not
defensive as its actions were the cause of the escalation
of hostilities. Then when Hamas offered to agree to a
continuation of the cease-fire for 10 years if the
blockade was lifted, Israel ignored the offer. Falk says
Israel’s action in ignoring the offer by Hamas to
negotiate how to continue the cease-fire “is a violation
of international law which requires a government to
use every diplomatic option before they have recourse
to war.”
An article by Jimmy Carter similarly details how
Hamas did not break the cease-fire, just as it was
Hamas that offered to negotiate with Israel to extend
the cease-fire. (Jimmy Carter, “Gaza: an unnecessary
war,” 1/8/09, Mercury News.
4
) Carter notes that the
people of Gaza “were being starved” by Israel’s
actions enforcing the blockade. Carter describes his
efforts in mid-December to extend the soon-to-expire
six-month cease-fire deadline. The issue for Hamas
was the opening of the crossing points into Gaza to
restore access to needed supplies for the people of
Gaza. Carter reports that Israeli officials “informally
proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be
possible.” Carter relates how this was “unacceptable to
Hamas and hostilities erupted.”
While Israel has presented its rationale for its
attack on Gaza to the United Nations, claiming that it
is acting in a just manner, the Security Council has
passed a binding resolution calling for a cease-fire and
withdrawal from Gaza. Israel is ignoring the resolu-
tion, though as a member state of the United Nations,
it has an obligation to abide by the decisions of the
Security Council.
Under Article 33 of the Charter of the United
Nations, the Security Council has the authority to call
upon the parties to settle their dispute by peaceful
means. More civilians are being killed and wounded
every day that Israel continues its military attack and
blockade of Gaza, yet Israel continues to ignore its
obligations to cease its attacks.
The crisis in Gaza is a test of the United Nations
Page 9
and the international community. Can a means be
found to require Israel to live up to its obligations as an
occupying power to the Palestinian people in their
struggle for self determination? This is a critical
challenge facing the United Nations and the interna-
tional community.
Many protests and demonstrations are taking
place around the world in support of the Palestinian
people and against the attack by Israel on Gaza. These
demonstrations are an indication that there is public
opinion and grassroots pressure for the United Nations
and member nations to let Israel know the need to
fulfill its obligations under the UN charter and interna-
tional law. The struggle of the Palestinian people for
self-determination and against occupation, as covered
under Article 73 and 74 of the Charter of the UN, is a
struggle that deserves the support of the member
nations and of people around the world.
Notes:
1. UN Press Conference: Yazdan Al Amawi, team leader, Care’s
West Bank and Gaza program, Allyn Dhynes, communications
manager, World Vision International, Sarah Leah Whitson,
Middle East and North Africa director, Human Rights Watch, to
brief on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. January 7, 2009.
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2009/
pc090107am1.rm. (No longer available.)
2. UN radio’s Samir Aldarabi spoke to Richard Falk, the UN
Human Rights Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian territories
about the situation in Gaza. January 2, 2009
http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/67184.html.
(No longer available.)
3. UN Radio’s Samir Imtair Aldarabi spoke to Richard Falk, the
UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Occupied
Palestinian Territories about the human rights violations in Gaza.
/real/2009/090109-falk2.rm?save. (No longer available.)
4. Jimmy Carter, “Gaza: An Unnecessary War,” The Mercury
News, January 8, 2009.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2009
/01/08/jimmy-carter-gaza-an-unnecessary-war/ (access restricted)
[Editor’s Note: On January 18, 2009, a truce/ceasefire ended the
22-day conflict in Gaza known as the 2008-2009 Gaza War. UN
officials visited Gaza soon thereafter. The following article about
two such visits appeared in OhmyNews International on January
_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384718&rel_no=1 (no longer
available).]
(2009)
UN Officials Present
Need to End
Israeli Siege of Gaza
to Security Council
by Ronda Hauben
“Every Gazan projects a sense of having stared
death in the face. Every Gazan has a tale of profound
grief to tell,” recounted Karen AbuZayd, the Commis-
sioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency (UNRWA) in her presentation to the Security
Council on Tuesday before they went into closed
session.
She reported that there had been a systematic de-
struction in Gaza to schools, universities, residential
buildings, factories, shops and farms. (Karen
AbuZayd’s Statement to the Security Council, Jan. 27,
2009)
1
AbuZayd told the Security Council that “There is
rage against the attackers for often failing to distin-
guish between military targets and civilians and there
is also resentment against the international community
for having allowed first the siege and then the war to
go on for so long.”
2
Also speaking to the Security Council before
they went into closed session was John Holmes, the
Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and
Emergency Relief. Holmes explains how he visited
Gaza from Jan. 21 to 25, 2009.
Describing the widespread destruction to Gaza’s
economic and civil infrastructure, he reported, for
example, that the entire industrial and residential area
in East Jabalia had been systematically bulldozed,
along with other serious damage to medical facilities,
water, sanitation and other critical infrastructure, in-
cluding damage to UN facilities. “I saw the UNRWA
compound warehouse still smouldering, and the
OCHA office in the UNSCO compound, where my
own staff used to work, damaged beyond use,” Holmes
reported.
Page 10
Both AbuZayd and Holmes emphasized the im-
possibility of any improvement in the situation in Gaza
without the lifting by Israel of the blockade. “All
Gaza’s borders must be opened and kept open continu-
ously (including at Karni, Sofa, Nahal Oz, Kerem
Shalom, Erez and Rafah) to allow two way freedom of
movement for people, goods and cash,” AbuZayd told
the Security Council.
“Recovery requires the free inflow of humanitar-
ian and commercial supplies,” she stressed. “Recon-
struction demands open borders that enable the impor-
tation of construction materials and the export of
products and goods from Gaza.”
“Let me emphasize again,” Holmes reiterated,
“the unacceptability of the status quo ante, with a
limited trickle of items into Gaza continuing the
effective collective punishment of the civilian popula-
tion – and the resultant counterproductive reliance on
tunnels for daily essentials, and further build up of
frustration of anger.”
He explained the critical need to open Gaza to at
least 500 truckloads of goods daily, including commer-
cial traffic, up from the 120 truckloads that Israel
allows on “good days,” in contrast to the frequent
situation when fewer than 120 truckloads are given
permission to enter Gaza, and the times when no trucks
are allowed to enter as the crossing points are closed
by Israel.
Holmes also described how many humanitarian
workers, including those from international NGOs,
“continue to be refused regular entry” to Gaza.
“We already see relief goods piling up in Egypt
for lack of ready access,” Holmes reported. Reminding
the members of the Security Council that they them-
selves passed Resolution 1860 (2009) which provides
for “unimpeded provision and distribution throughout
Gaza of humanitarian assistance,” Holmes pointed to
the importance of this critical principle.
Moreover, Holmes explained that “Israel has a
particular responsibility as the occupying power in this
context, because of its control of Gaza’s borders with
Israel, to respect the relevant provisions of interna-
tional humanitarian law.” (See: for example, Articles
73 and 74 of the United Nations Charter)
As soon as the reports by Holmes and AbuZayd
had been presented, the Security Council went into a
closed session.
When the closed session with Holmes and
AbuZayd was over, these two UN officials came to
speak with the press.
No member of the Security Council, however,
was available to speak with the press. Journalists
wondered why not even the Security Council President
was available to comment on these important reports
on the situation in Gaza and the need for the Security
Council to act on getting Israel to lift the siege.
Had the reports about devastated Gaza as a “giant
open-air prison” fallen on deaf ears at the Security
Council?
The lack of any public response from any mem-
ber of the Security Council to these two heart wrench-
ing reports is but another sign of the failure of the
Security Council to demonstrate its ability to carry out
its mandate.
The failure of the Security Council to act with
regard to the siege against Gaza began over a year
ago.
3
The growing calls for Security Council reform
can only be further fueled by this lack of action by the
Security Council, which the Indonesian ambassador
described as, “The silence is deafening.”
Notes:
1. See: Security Council: The situation in the Middle East,
including the Palestinian question. [Print version of talk, Security
Council S/PV.6077], also Webcast : version of Archived Video –
English: 26 minutes. http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc
/2009/sc090127pm2. (No longer available.)
2. For background see: for example: Ronda Hauben, “Marathon
UN Meeting on Gaza Goes Nowhere: The ability of the Security
Council to function breaking down,” OhmyNews International,
March 4, 2008. http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article
_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=381957&rel_no=1.(No longer
available.)
Ronda Hauben, “Israel Attempts to Justify Its Attack on Gaza.
The obligations of Israel as an occupying power under the UN
Charter,” OhmyNews International, Jan. 12, 2009. (Available in
this issue.)
3. Ronda Hauben, “Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza Crisis
‘The silence is deafening,’ says Indonesia’s UN Ambassador,”
OhmyNews International, Feb. 7, 2008. http://english.ohmynews
.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=381689
&rel_no=1. (No longer available online. Available in this issue.)
Page 11
[Editor’s Note: For 22 days, from Dec 27, 2008 to January 18,
2009 there was an Israel/Palestinian conflict in the occupied Gaza
strip. On January 29, 2009, a panel was held at the World Eco-
nomic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, titled
“Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace.” The following article is
a report about that panel. It appeared in OhmyNews International
view/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384849&rel_no=1 (No
longer available.)]
(2009)
What Principles Guide
the UN in Creating a
Palestinian-Israeli Peace
Framework?
Davos Talks by Recep Tayyip Erdogan
and Amr Moussa on Steps Needed to
Build Peace Process
by Ronda Hauben
Part I. – Analysis of Situation
The Palestinians in Gaza continue to suffer under
the siege created by Israel and Egypt closing the bor-
der crossings into Gaza. Who is responsible? What can
be done to get the siege lifted?
Such questions are on the minds of many people
around the world. The siege of Gaza has gone on for
many months and continues, even after the devasta-
tion, deaths and injuries of the Palestinians caused by
the recent 22-day Israeli military assault on Gaza.
Though these are serious questions, they rarely
get public attention and discussion. One recent excep-
tion surprisingly was a panel held at the World Eco-
nomic Forum in Davos last month. The panel session
was titled “Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace.”
David Ignatius of the Washington Post was the moder-
ator. On the panel were the UN Secretary-General, Ban
Ki Moon, the Secretary-General of the Arab League
Amr Moussa, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan and the President of Israel, Shimon
Peres.
In his instructions to the panel, Ignatius asked
members to discuss, “What needs to be done to prevent
the Middle East peace process from slipping back.”
1
After Ban Ki-moon gave a short set of com-
ments, Erdogan was called on to speak. He proposed
that “we need to do a proper analysis of the current
situation in order to determine what steps need to be
taken.”
He pointed to the period six months earlier when
there was a cease fire agreed to by Israel and Hamas.
The Turkish Prime Minister reminded the audience
that for six months there had been “No problem for
rocket attacks” on Israel. The Israeli obligation for the
cease fire then was “to lift the embargo,” that Israel
had imposed on Gaza.
But Israel didn’t fulfill its part of the truce agree-
ment.
Erdogan went on to discuss what he saw as one
of the key problems to be solved if the circumstances
of the Palestinians had any chance of being improved.
That problem was how to heal the breach be-
tween the Palestinian factions, particularly between
Hamas and Fatah.
Erdogan pointed to the fact that Hamas had won
the parliamentary election of January 2006. Actually
Hamas won 76 of 132 seats, while Fatah only got 43.
2
Erdogan explained, “We are talking about de-
mocracy. So if we would like to see democracy take
root, then we must respect first of all the people who
have received the votes of the people of the country
they are running in.”
“So we may not like them, but we have to respect
the process,” he emphasized.
Instead, Israel arrested several of Hamas govern-
ment ministers and members of Parliament and put
them in prison. Erdogan described how in the middle
of December 2008, he had asked Prime Minister
Olmert, as a gesture of good will, to release these
prisoners, along with the Palestinian women and child-
ren they had in Israeli prisons. Olmert told Erdogan
that he would talk to his colleagues in Israel and
respond the next day. No response was forthcoming.
Four days later Israel started the war on Gaza.
Erdogan expressed his conviction that the UN
should be taking the lead in working to solve the
Palestinian crisis and that he was hopeful that the new
U.S. administration would put its weight behind a
solution.
“There’s got to be a new opening and Hamas
must be considered in the process,” Erdogan proposed.
He offered Turkey’s help in the process.
Part II. – Occupation Breeds Resistance
Next the moderator asked Amr Moussa to speak
to the question of how to achieve unity among the
Palestinians, and what he felt the new U.S. administra-
tion could do to help the situation.
Page 12
Moussa said there must be a recognition that
Israel’s assault on Gaza “was not just a reaction for
some rockets being launched against Southern Israel.”
This situation in Gaza and in the rest of the Palestinian
territory is a problem of a foreign military occupation,
he explained.
“The siege, the blockade of Gaza,” Moussa main-
tained, “is a very severe situation.” He argued that
“you cannot ask people in Gaza living in starvation
and hunger because of the blockad … to be calm and
ask them why do you throw stones against your occupi-
ers?” “This,” Moussa said, “is against the nature of
people. You strangle them, you starve them and then
you ask them to be quiet?”
He went on to refer to Israel’s claim that the
smuggling into Gaza must be stopped. Moussa said,
“You strangle them, not a single window of opportu-
nity, and then you talk to them about illicit trade?”
Instead, “If you want to prevent this, you have to
open the crossing points,” Moussa explained. “You
have to give them food, you have to give them water,
to give them medicine.”
He added that the “Palestinians had believed the
call for them to practice democracy, to have an elec-
tion.”
But then he described how when, “Hamas won,
and half an hour, twenty-five minutes after the an-
nouncement of the results of the election, Hamas was
served notice that aid would be suspended and then
came the blockade.”
“It is not a question of Israel reacting to some
rockets,” Moussa emphasized, “it is much deeper than
that, it is an action of occupation, it is an action of
blockade, then a reaction of resistance, then the reac-
tion of destruction carried out by Israel.”
Moussa also referred to Israel’s failure to re-
spond to the Arab initiative.
In 2002, the Arab nations decided at a Summit
that they were ready, at their highest levels, to agree to
peace with Israel. They proposed to recognize Israel
and carry out any agreements signed with Israel in
exchange for the creation of a Palestinian State with
borders similar to those before 1967. But in the seven
years that transpired after the offer of the initiative,
Israel failed to respond in any authorized way to the
authorized message from the Arab summit.
Referring to Ban Ki-moon’s brief presentation to
the panel, Moussa said there are three or four things
that need to be done now. He listed these as a cease
fire, opening of the crossings, stopping illicit traffic
and the reconciliation between the Palestinians.
Moussa also said he had another point to make.
But the moderator cut him off, before he could explain.
Unfortunately, instead of providing for a similar
short period for the Israeli president to make his
comments, the moderator allowed Peres to speak for
twice the time he had given to each of the two previous
speakers. When Erdogan asked for time to respond to
Peres, however, Ignatius told him there was no time.
This led Erdogan to leave the panel in protest.
The issues raised by these two talks were a sig-
nificant statement of what is needed to deal with the
crisis facing the Palestinians in Gaza.
Part III. – Principles for UN Actions in
Palestinian Crisis
Had there been time for discussion in the panel
held at Davos, it would have been helpful to put this
discussion in the context of a United Nations General
Assembly document presented in January 2008.
3
This document is a report by the Human Rights
Rapporteur John Dugard, discussing what he believes
to be the law governing the United Nations participa-
tion in the Palestinian situation.
Dugard refers to the problem represented by the
Quartet, comprised of the European Union, Russia,
United Nations, and United States which was estab-
lished in 2002 to facilitate the Middle-East Peace
Process negotiations. and the UN’s participation in it,
with the Secretary-General representing the UN.
Dugard explains how on July 20, 2004 the Gen-
eral Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/15. This
resolution called on Israel to comply with the Advisory
Opinion of the International Court of Justice issued by
the court titled the “Legal Consequences of the Con-
struction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Terri-
tory.”
4
The International Court of Justice is the judicial
organ of the United Nations. It is, according to Dugard
“now part of the law of the United Nations.” In addi-
tion the General Assembly by a large majority gave its
approval to the decision. As such the Advisory Opin-
ion is one of the authoritative statements of the appli-
cable international law relating to the framework for
peace in the Middle East.
While this law isn’t binding on three of the Quar-
tet members, the U.S., Russia, or the EU (though the
Russians and the EU members did vote in favor of the
UN resolution approving the advisory opinion), the
Page 13
UN as a member of the Quartet is bound by the Advi-
sory Opinion. As a representative of the UN, the
Secretary-General, Dugard argues, is by law obliged to
uphold the principles of the Advisory Opinion in his
participation in the Quartet.
The Secretary-General or his representative is by
law obliged to be guided by the Opinion and to en-
deavor in good faith to do his or her best to ensure
compliance with the opinion.
In his statement about what is happening in the
Palestinian situation, Dugard points to the fact that
Palestine is an occupied territory and that Israel has
obligations regarding its treatment of the Palestinians.
Dugard argues that the root cause of the violence
in the Israeli-Palestinian context is the occupation, not
any act of Hamas or others.
He notes that the right of the Palestinian people
for self-determination is in general recognized. But
such a recognition “should not take the form of support
– political, economic or military – for one [Palestinian]
faction at the expense of the other.”
A critical factor in the Palestinian situation is the
need for reconciliation between the two major Pales-
tinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, Dugard maintains.
The Quartet explains Dugard, instead “pursues a divis-
ive policy of preferring one faction over the other, of
speaking to one faction but not to the other; of dealing
with one faction while isolating the other.”
In negotiations between the Palestinian Authority
and Israel, what was being done was a negotiation
among unequal partners. The problem with this is that
it doesn’t make it possible to have the negotiations
reflect a normative framework.
As the UN draft resolution A/HRC/7/17 of
Dugard’s report states: “In the opinion of the Special
Rapporteur negotiations should take place within a
normative framework, with the guiding norms to be
found in international law, particularly international
humanitarian law and human rights law, and the
Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice
and Security Council resolutions.”
“Negotiations on issues such as boundaries,
settlements, East Jerusalem, the return of refugees and
the isolation of Gaza should be informed by such
norms and not by political horse-trading,” Dugard’s
report advises.
The experience of the negotiations that led to a
democratic South Africa in the mid 1990s is offered as
an example in Dugard’s report, as it places the efforts
toward a solution to the problem within a framework
of accepted democratic principles, and international
law (with special reference to human rights law).
Part IV – Need for Normative Framework
What the presentations by Erdogan and Moussa
at the World Economic Forum and the UN report
document by Dugard have in common is that they look
for the underlying principles that are needed to guide
efforts to settle the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.
These principles are based on the obligations
under international law, established and accepted by
most of the international community via its support for
the Advisory Opinion. The Palestinians are in a situa-
tion where they suffer from Israeli occupation.
These principles include:
1) Recognizing the Palestinian right to resist occupa-
tion.
2) Treating the Palestinian factions of Fatah and
Hamas with equality so as to encourage unity.
3) Letting Israel know that it has the obligation to
negotiate with the Palestinians in a way that is condu-
cive to recognizing and implementing the principles of
international law, not in a way that treats the Palestin-
ians as less than equals.
4) That the UN uphold the principles of international
law.
A particular example of the need to apply these
principles is raised by Dugard’s report when it dis-
cusses the role the UN Secretary-General has played in
the Quartet. The U.S., the EU, Russia and the UN
(represented by the Secretary-General) are part of the
Quartet which is supposedly providing a framework
for peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.
The problem Dugard observes is that the Quartet
does not recognize the principles of the Advisory
Decision. While this is a course of action that can be
taken by the U.S., the EU or Russia, it is not appropri-
ate for the Secretary-General acting on behalf of the
UN to discard these principles. Dugard’s report pro-
poses that the Secretary-General is “in law obliged to
be guided by the Opinion and to endeavor in good faith
to do his or her best to ensure compliance” with it. In
this context he proposes that it is necessary for the
Secretary-General to either withdraw from the Quartet
or to explain “why he is unable to do so and how he
justifies remaining in the Quartet in the light of its
refusal to be guided by the law of the United Nations.”
Unless international law becomes the framework
under which the international community, including
the UN’s Secretary-General, operates to work toward
Page 14
a solution to the Gaza crisis, there seems no way to end
the devastation that the Israeli government believes it
has the right to inflict on the Palestinians.
The recent panel at Davos on the crisis in Gaza
demonstrated that there are nations like Turkey and
international representatives like the Secretary-General
of the Arab League willing to explain to the world the
principles needed to guide the efforts for a peaceful
solution. It is imperative that there be serious discus-
sion around the world about these principles and also
efforts to hold the UN and other international and
national entities accountable for the implementation of
these principles.
Notes:
1. A webcast of the session is online at: Gaza: The Case for
Middle East Peace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR4zRb Py2kY.
For a partial transcript:
https://wewritewhatwelike.com/2009/01/31/transcripts-of-
erdogan-moussa-peres-and-erdogan-again-at-davos/.
2. Scott Wilson, “Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Compli-
cating Peace Efforts in Mideast,” The Washington Post, Jan. 27,
2006; Page A01. Available at:
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/01/27
/hamas-sweeps-palestinian-elections-complicating-peace-efforts-
in-mideast/8a4a4412-5f9b-4583-8607-51c7dd3781f4/.
3. General Assembly Draft Resolution A/HRC/7/17 21 January
2008, Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied
Arab Territories. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situa-
tion of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since
1967, John Dugard. Available at:
https://www.rightdocs.org/doc /a-hrc-7-17/.
4. Advisory opinion requested by General Assembly on Dec. 8,
2003 from International Court of Justice regarding legal conse-
quences of construction of the wall built by Israel in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories. Issued July 9, 2004.
https://www.icj-cij
.org/case/131.
Among the advisory opinion’s principle findings were:
1) Palestinian people have the right to self determination.
2) Israel is under a legal obligation to comply with 4
th
Geneva
Convention in Occupied Palestinian Territories
3) Israel is bound by international human rights conventions in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories.
[Editor’s Note: From September 2008 to September 2009, H.E.
Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann, M.M. was the President of
the 63
rd
session of the United Nations General Assembly. On
September 14, 2009 he finished his term and made a Farewell
Speech. This is a shortened version of his remarks concerning the
issues considered by the 63
rd
Session. His whole Farewell Speech
can be seen at:
https://www.voltairenet.org/article162248.html.]
(2009)
In the Shadow of Deep Crises
by Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann
President of the 63
rd
Session of the
UN General Assembly
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Tempus fugit, the Romans used to say, and they
were right. Time flies: it is running out for us. And as
time passes us by, so too do the opportunities for us to
do what we must to ensure a fitting future for the
coming generations … .
One year ago, from this very rostrum, I shared
with you the vision of what I hoped to achieve during
my year in this high office, to which you, with such
trust and affection, had elected me. Now the time has
come to take stock … .
Palestine: A Scandal that has Caused Me
Much Sorrow
My greatest frustration this year has been the
Palestine situation. The Question of Palestine contin-
ues to be the most serious and prolonged unresolved
political and human rights issue on the agenda of the
United Nations since its inception. The evident lack of
commitment for resolving it is a scandal that has
caused me much sorrow.
I promised a proactive Presidency, and sincerely
©2009 Ronda Hauben
Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann (far left) with reporters
and staff at the UN
Page 15
believe that I did everything I possibly could in this
regard, requesting and attempting to persuade those
who should have been most closely involved to call for
the convocation of the General Assembly to consider
the Palestine situation. However, whether at the time
of the three-week invasion of Gaza that began on 27
December or now, all I received was advice to give the
process more time, because things were always on the
point of being resolved and we should do nothing that
could endanger the success that was always just
beyond our reach. [Father Brockmann is here and
below likely referring to the Permanent Observer
Mission of Palestine to the United Nations represent-
ing the Palestinian Authority.]
Faced with this situation, I sincerely did not
know what to do. I wanted to help Palestine, but those
who should supposedly have been most interested
denied their support for reasons of “caution” that I was
incapable of understanding. I hope that they were right
and that I was wrong. Otherwise, we face an ugly
situation of constant complicity with the aggression
against the rights of the noble and long-suffering
Palestinian people.
A just resolution of the Question of Palestine
must be based on the content of international law, and
will only be attained when the unity of the Palestinian
people has been achieved and the international com-
munity speaks with all its representatives who enjoy
credibility and have been democratically elected. In
addition to the withdrawal of the Israelis from all
territories illegally occupied since 1967, international
law demands that all Palestinians displaced during the
creation of the State of Israel, their children and
grandchildren, be permitted to return to their homeland
of Palestine.
My chief consultant on humanitarian affairs, Dr.
Kevin Cahill, was sent to Gaza from 17 to 22 February
to prepare a report on the humanitarian situation in
Gaza immediately after the aggression. Dr. Cahill’s
report was issued on Wednesday 19 August, on the
occasion of World Humanitarian Day commemorating
the sacrifices of United Nations staff in conflict zones;
it had originally been intended for release at a Special
Session on Gaza, but that did not take place for the
reasons mentioned.
I find disgraceful the passivity and apparent
indifference of some highly influential members of the
Security Council to the fact that the blockade of Gaza
has continued uninterrupted for two years, in flagrant
violation of international law and of the resolution of
the Security Council itself, causing immense damage
and suffering to the Palestinian population of Gaza.
This situation threatens to become even more serious
if immediate measures are not taken, now that winter
is approaching. Now is the time to demonstrate, with
actions and not simply words, a true commitment to
the concept of the Responsibility to Protect.
Main Lesson or Perception
It would be inappropriate for me to leave without
sharing with you what I feel is the main lesson or
perception I have gained during this year of work,
dedication and total commitment to the cause of peace
through the democratization of the United Nations; the
revitalization of the General Assembly; the complete
abolition of nuclear weapons by the year 2020, the 75
th
anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the eradication of poverty
and hunger, which this year passed the psychological
barrier of a billion people suffering hunger throughout
the world; the taking of measures to ensure the avail-
ability of clean water and food for all; the promotion of
effective policies for dealing with climate change;
putting an end to the crime of human trafficking, as
well as to the disgrace of the ill treatment of and
discrimination against women; guaranteeing the right
to education for children and youths, including that of
girls and boys in situations of armed combat or human-
itarian disasters caused by natural phenomena; as well
as guaranteeing universal access to health, which is an
ethical and religious imperative.
In all these endeavours, the ongoing counsel of
Brother David Andrews of the Congregation of the
Holy Cross, as well as of Maude Barlow, Mohamed
Bedjaoui, Byron Blake, Leonardo Boff, Noam
Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Michael Clark, Kevin Cahill,
Aldo Diaz Lacayo, François Houtart, Michael Ken-
nedy, Francisco Lacayo Parajón, Carlos Emilio López,
Paul Oquist, Nuripan Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Oscar-
René Vargas, was of great use to this Presidency,
which we intended to be a team effort from the begin-
ning. However, clearly, our greatest gratitude is to
God, our Lord, for having allowed us to contribute in
some small way to the cause of world peace.
During this year, there was much talk of the need
to reform the United Nations and to do everything
possible to improve its image, credibility and effec-
tiveness. According to data from the latest poll by the
Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes project,
carried out in 24 nations and the Palestinian Territo-
Page 16
ries, there has been a noticeable improvement in the
perception of the United Nations. This gives us happi-
ness, but not satisfaction. Much remains to be done if
the United Nations is to become worthy of the prestige,
trust and credibility it needs to carry out its mission
effectively, a mission that is so important in today’s
troubled world.
It is said that the League of Nations failed
because those who sponsored it lacked the power or
will needed to make it a reality. I believe that some-
thing similar can be said of the United Nations. I am
one of those who believe that the United Nations has
the potential as an organization to be indispensable to
humanity’s efforts to survive the crises converging to
threaten its extinction. The main problem, without a
doubt, is that not all its founders really believed, or
believe even today, in the vision or principles explicit
and implicit in its underlying Charter.
I believe that it is not far-fetched to note that the
whole world knows that, among many other truths,
some of our most powerful and influential Member
States definitely do not believe in the rule of law in
international relations and are of the view, moreover,
that complying with the legal norms to which we
formally commit, when signing the Charter, is some-
thing that applies only to weak countries. With such a
low level of commitment, it should not be surprising
that the United Nations has been unable to achieve the
main objectives for which it was created.
Certain Member States think that they can act
according to the law of the jungle, and defend the right
of the strongest to do whatever they feel like with total
and absolute impunity, and remain accountable to no
one. They think nothing of railing against multilat-
eralism, proclaiming the virtues of unilateralism while
simultaneously pontificating unashamedly from their
privileged seats on the Security Council about the need
for all Member States conscientiously to fulfill their
obligations under the Charter, or be sanctioned (selec-
tively of course) for failing to do so. The sovereign
equality of all Member States and the obligation to
prevent wars are, for them, minor details that need not
be taken very seriously.
All of this, and many other equally serious
anomalies, is what has brought many to believe in the
urgency of the need to reform the United Nations. But
during this year as President of the General Assembly,
I have come to the conclusion that the time has already
passed for reforming or mending our Organization.
What we need to do is to reinvent it, and we need
urgently to do it ad majorem gloriam Dei, which is to
say, for the good of the Earth and of humanity.
In the 64 years since the creation of the United
Nations, there have been many scientific advances and
development in the ethical consciousness of mankind
that allow us to clarify the main elements of this other
world, possible and indispensable for our survival, and
to proceed on that basis to the drafting of a proposed
Declaration on the Common Good of the Earth and
Humanity. Once the consensus of Member States has
been obtained on this Declaration, this shared vision
will have to be converted into a draft for a new Charter
of the United Nations, one that is attuned to the needs
and knowledge of the twenty-first century … .
Tempus fugit. Time is running out. In Copenha-
gen [at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change
Conference] we will have the opportunity to show that
we understand well what that means and that we are
determined to do what is needed to defend life.
Thank you.
[Editor’s Note: In 2004, the UN International Court of Justice
(ICJ) decided that Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land
were against international law. But the settlement activity contin-
ued. In 2009, the Security Council addressed the settlement ques-
tion again and also in 2011. The following article documenting the
U.S. veto first appeared on taz.de on February 28, 2011 at:
https://
blogs.taz.de/no_settlements_130_cosponsors/. (No longer avail-
able.)]
(2011)
130 Nations Co-sponsor
Security Council Resolution
Condemning Israeli
Settlements
by Ronda Hauben
It was Friday afternoon, February 18, 2011 at the
UN Security Council stakeout shortly before 3 p.m.
Watching Ambassadors and their staff members com-
ing down the stairs at the UN leading to the Security
Council, one had the sense something significant was
happening. Not only did the crowd arriving include
Ambassadors from the 15 nations on the Security
Council, but a large number of Ambassadors of nations
not currently on the Security Council, along with other
members of their delegations, hurried into the Security
Page 17
Council chambers.
This was not a usual situation for the Security
Council. Clearly more than a few nations judged that
the meeting would be important. The Security Council
was to vote on a draft Resolution condemning Israeli
settlements being built on Palestinian land occupied by
Israel. This meeting was also unusual in that 130
member nations had agreed in advance to co-sponsor
the draft Resolution. To have such a large number of
nations sponsoring a Security Council resolution was
rare.
Israeli settlement activity had been formally
declared illegal in the 2004 decision of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice (ICJ), the court charged with
determining legal disputes that is connected with the
United Nations.
1
Also this was to be the first Security Council
resolution on the Palestine Question to be brought up
during the U.S. Presidency of Barack Obama. Presi-
dent Obama had put on record that his administration
opposed Israeli settlement activity.
Though the meeting had originally been set for 3
pm, the many Ambassadors who had come for the
meeting stood around talking for almost an hour. The
reason for the delay was not evident. Only several days
later did I learn the reason for the hour long postpone-
ment of the formal meeting.
The original draft Resolution had been prepared
several weeks earlier. One hundred and thirty nations
were listed as co-sponsors of the original draft Resolu-
tion S/2011/24.
2
Only a few days before the meeting to
vote was to be held, however, the UN Secretariat for
Security Council Affairs informed the SC Presidency
that co-sponsors could only be listed on the resolution
if they first applied to participate under Rule 37 of the
Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Coun-
cil. Only then would it be possible for a UN member
who was not a member of the Security Council to co-
sponsor a resolution under Rule 38 of the Provisional
Rules of Procedure.
This interpretation of the Rules was only brought
to the attention of the Security Council Presidency a
few days before the vote was to take place. In this
short period of time, only 80 of the 130 co-sponsors
were able to be listed as official co-sponsors of the
draft Resolution. These circumstances leave the ques-
tion why the UN Secretariat for Security Council
Affairs did not bring these requirements to the atten-
tion of the Brazilian presidency sooner since the draft
Resolution had been available for several weeks before
it was to be voted on.
At last at 3:57 p.m. the formal meeting began.
3
The Brazilian Ambassador to the UN acting as
the President of the Security Council for February,
Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, opened the meeting. To
introduce the draft Resolution, Nawaf Salam, the
Lebanese Ambassador to the UN, spoke. He explained
how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had
declared settlements illegal in its 2004 advisory
opinion on the separation wall. He quoted from the
decision:
(T)he Israeli settlements in the occupied
Palestinian Territory (including East Jeru-
salem) have been established in breach of
international law. (See: A/ES-10/273, para
120.)
Under paragraph 6 of article 49 of the 4
th
Geneva
Convention an occupying power is forbidden from
altering a territory it is occupying or from seizing any
of the occupied peoples’ land or possessions. Hence all
settlement activity in occupied Palestinian territory is
illegal, including newly planned settlements.
The Lebanese Ambassador also referred to prior
Security Council resolutions such as SCR 446 (1979)
declaring Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian
land illegal, and to other agreements like the Road
Map which required that Israel freeze its settlement
activity. Also, the Lebanese Ambassador referred to
the large number of nations sponsoring this draft
Resolution, a number he said was “unprecedented.”
Ambassador Viotti, the Brazilian Security Coun-
cil President called for a vote on the draft Resolution.
Those watching the meeting live on UN TV
waited to learn how the U.S. would vote. There were
14 votes in favor of the Resolution.
4
One vote, that of
the U.S., a permanent member of the Security Council,
was cast against the Resolution.
Ambassador Viotti explained that, “The draft
Resolution has not been adopted, owing to a negative
vote of a permanent member of the Council.”
After the vote, the U.S. Ambassador, Susan Rice,
explained the reason for her veto. She said that a
Security Council resolution condemning settlements
would prevent Israel from negotiating with the Pales-
tinians. Passing the draft Resolution would only lead
to more settlements, she warned. The Security Council
was not the place to take up this problem, according to
Ambassador Rice.
Speaking in favor of its vote supporting the draft
Resolution, was the United Kingdom’s Ambassador
Page 18
Mark Lyall Grant. His statement was also made on
behalf of France and Germany, both of which had
voted in favor of the draft Resolution.
Speaking next, Vitaly Churkin, Ambassador for
the Russian Federation, explained why he had voted in
favor of the draft Resolution. He said that Israel’s
settlement activity was unilateral activity that pre-
judged final status issues and thus made the possibility
of a negotiated settlement between Palestine and Israel
ever more difficult. Also Ambassador Churkin referred
to the importance of the Security Council mission he
had proposed to the Middle East to contribute to
advancing the peace process.
Baso Sangquo, the South African Ambassador to
the UN expressed his regret that the draft Resolution
had not been approved. He said that Israel must abide
by its international obligations in order to be negotiat-
ing in good faith in the peace process and thus the
continuing settlement activity by Israel undermined
peace efforts.
In her statement about why she had voted in
favor of the draft Resolution, the Brazilian Ambassa-
dor said that “the peaceful resolution of the Question
of Palestine is arguably the single-most important
objective for peace and stability in the world.” She saw
the continuing expansion of settlements in the Palestin-
ian Occupied Territory as the most important obstacle
to a solution to the question. “It is therefore only
natural that the Security Council deals with this issue
in a manner consistent with its primary responsibility
for international peace and security.” Therefore Am-
bassador Viotti expressed the importance of welcom-
ing the international community, including the Secu-
rity Council to be involved in the matter.
Explaining three of the reasons why Brazil had
co-sponsored the draft Resolution, she said that first,
“the continued disregard for international obligations
relating to settlement construction poses a threat to
peace and security in the region.” Second, halting
settlement activity should not be regarded as a conces-
sion, but as “lawful conduct under international law.
The third reason she gave was that “unilateral action”
shall not prevail.” “(I)nternational law is always in the
interest of peace. The Security Council cannot settle
for less.” Ambassador Viotti said that the inclusion of
more countries in the peace process “would bring fresh
air into the peace process.”
Statements in favor of the draft Resolution were
also presented by Portugal’s Ambassador, Jose Filipe
Moraes Cabral, by Li Baodong, China’s Ambassador,
Columbia’s Ambassador Nestor Osorio, Mirsada
Colakovic, the Ambassador for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Raff Bukun-olu Wole Onemola, the
Nigerian Ambassador, India’s Ambassador, Manjeev
Singh Puri, and Gabon’s Ambassador Alfred Alexis
Moungara Moussotsi.
Riyad Mansour, the representative for the Perma-
nent Observer for Palestine and Meron Reuben for
Israel also spoke.
Ambassador Mansour thanked all those who had
helped to bring the draft to a vote in the Security
Council. He said that the resolution represented an
effort to remove an obstacle to the peace process. “The
proper message that the Council should have sent to
Israel was that its contempt for international law and
the international community would no longer be
tolerated.” He worried that the failure of the Security
Council to approve the resolution would lead to “more
Israeli intransigence and impunity.”
The Israeli Ambassador said that only direct
negotiations between Israel and Palestine could resolve
the conflict between them.
The meeting ended at 5:02 p.m. As the Ambassa-
dors filed out of the Security Council there was little
comment to journalists. Only the Lebanese Ambassa-
dor and the Palestinian Ambassador stayed to speak at
the stakeout.
At the stakeout after the Security Council meet-
ing, Riyad Mansour, the representative for the Perma-
nent Observer for Palestine, was asked if the Palestin-
ian Authority (PA) would now take the issue of the
Israeli settlements to the General Assembly under the
Uniting for Peace Resolution.
5
Such a resolution pro-
vides for the General Assembly to act on an issue
when the Security Council is prevented from acting
due to a veto by one of its permanent members. He
responded that this would be one of the alternatives
considered by the PA in determining what would be
their next step.
Lebanon’s Ambassador Salam stressed that the
draft Resolution was only restating what was declared
illegal activity by Israel under international law,
namely the Geneva Conventions, and the decision by
the International Court of Justice.
6
What is striking about the meeting was that such
overwhelming support was demonstrated by members
of the UN for an action attempted by the Security
Council. The use of the veto by the U.S. Ambassador
to prevent the draft Resolution against Israeli settle-
ment activity from being adopted, demonstrated the
Page 19
failure of the Security Council to be able to support or
enforce international law. The U.S. Ambassador said
by her vote that it was necessary to support Israel’s
breach of international law with its continuing confis-
cation of Palestinian land in violation of Israel’s
obligation as an occupying power. The meeting
demonstrated the stark contradiction between the
obligations of international law as documented in the
decision of the ICJ condemning any settlement activity
on the part of Israel in the Occupied Territory of
Palestine and the fact that a veto in the Security
Council can be used by a single member nation like the
U.S. to protect itself or another member nation in its
violation of international law.
The ICJ decision speaks not only to the violation
of international law in the case of Israeli actions in
Palestinian Occupied Territory. It also refers to the
obligation of other nations to uphold international law
on this issue.
At a time when the issue of reform of the Secu-
rity Council is on the agenda of the UN the flaw in the
creation of the Security Council represented by the
veto power of the five permanent members stands out
prominently as a power badly in need of oversight.
Articles describing the PA’s reaction to the
February 18 Security Council meeting explain how the
U.S. veto delegitimizes any illusion that the U.S. is
able to play a role as an honest broker in negotiations
between Israel and Palestine.
7
There are also reports
that the PA recognizes the need to turn from relying on
bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine to
solve the problem and instead to turn to the interna-
tional community for the support needed to find a
solution.
The main message of the Security Council
meeting of February 18 is that there is overwhelming
support for the condemnation of Israel’s failure to
adhere to international law in its settlement activity.
Similarly, the meeting demonstrated that it is an abuse
of U.S. obligations as a member of the Security Coun-
cil to protect Israel from the condemnation of its
obligations under international law.
Notes:
1.International Court of Justice, “Legal Consequences of the
Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory,”
Advisory Opinion July 9, 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377.
2.Draft Resolution S/2011/24 February 17, 2011.
3. UN Security Council Meeting, Friday, February 18, 2011,
S/PV.6484, Transcript of meeting.
4. Security Council Meeting, 18 February 2011. “The situation in
the Middle East, including the Palestinian question.”
5. Riyad H. Mansour, Palestinian Observer, Security Council
Media Stakeout, 18 February 2011. Informal comments to the
media by H.E. Mr. Riyad H. Mansour, Permanent Observer of
Palestine to the United Nations, on the situation in the Middle
East including the Palestinian question.
6. Nawaf Salam, Lebanon, Security Council Media Stakeout, 18
February 2011. Informal comments to the media by H.E. Mr.
Nawaf Salam, Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United
Nations, on the situation in the Middle East including the Palestin-
ian question.
7. See: for example, Saud Abu Ramadan, “U.S. Veto on anti-
Jewish settlement resolution outrages Palestinians,” Xinhua, 2-19-
2011.
[Editor’s Note: The following article first appeared on January 30,
2018 on the netizenblog at: https://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2018
/01/30/rapporteur-questions-legality/. (No longer available.)]
(2018)
UN Rapporteur Michael Lynk
Questions Legality of Israeli
Occupation
by Ronda Hauben
In 2016, the UN Human Rights Council ap-
pointed S. Michael Lynk, a law professor at Western
University in London, Ontario, Canada, as the Special
Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the
Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967.
In October 2017, Lynk issued his first Report to
the UN. This report raises a fundamental question
about the nature of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
That question is:
Whether Israel’s role as occupiant of Pales-
tinian territory has now reached the point
of illegality under international law?
The Report establishes the criteria for the legality
of an occupation under international law. Then it uses
as precedent the International Court of Justice case
regarding South Africa’s occupation of Namibia. In
that case, the International Court of Justice decided
that South Africa did not satisfy the requirements for
the occupation to be a legal occupation. As a result of
that judgment, the international community was ob-
ligated to pressure South Africa to cease its occupa-
tion.
Lynk’s criteria for a legal occupation are the sat-
Page 20
isfaction of four requirements. They are:
1. There is an absolute prohibition against annexation
of any of the occupied territory.
2. The length of the occupation must be finite, mean-
ing it must be ended in a reasonable period of time.
3. It must be carried out in good faith.
4. It must be carried out in a way that meets the best
interests of the occupied.
Stated more formally, these principles are:
1. The Belligerent Occupier Cannot Annex Any of the
Occupied Territory.
2. The Belligerent Occupation Must Be Temporary,
and Cannot Be Either Permanent or Indefinite.
3. The Belligerent Occupation Must Be Carried Out in
a Way to satisfy that it serves the best interests of the
Occupied.
4. The Belligerent Occupier must administer the oc-
cupied territory in good faith including acting in full
compliance with its duties and obligations under inter-
national law and as a member of the United Nations.
A year later, in his second Report, the Rapporteur
takes up to demonstrate that Israel fails to satisfy all
four of these requirements.
For example, Lynk proposes that the “extraordi-
nary duration” of Israel’s occupation of Palestine
would be enough to place Israel in violation of this
critical element for legality of occupation, especially
as no persuasive justification has been provided for the
excessive longevity of the occupation.
In his Report, the Rapporteur makes the case
documenting how the role of Israel as Occupier in the
Palestinian territories “had crossed a red line” and that
there is a need to free the Palestinian people from this
illegal occupation.
In his conclusion, Lynk makes recommendations
including:
1
… that the Government of Israel bring a
complete end to the 50 years of occupation
of the Palestinian territories in as expedi-
tious a time period as possible, under inter-
national supervision.
… that the United Nations General Assem-
bly:
a. Commission a United Nations study on
the legality of Israel’s continued occupa-
tion of the Palestinian territory;
b. Consider the advantages of seeking an
advisory opinion from the International
Court of Justice on the question of the
legality of the occupation;
c. Consider commissioning a legal study on
the ways and means that UN Member
States can and must fulfill their obligations
and duties to ensure respect for interna-
tional law, including the duty of non-recog-
nition, the duty to cooperate to bring to an
end a wrongful situation and the duty to
investigate and prosecute grave breaches of
the Geneva Conventions;
d. Consider the adoption of a Uniting for
Peace resolution
2
with respect to the Ques-
tion of Palestine, in the event that there is a
determination that Israel’s role as occupier
is no longer lawful.
Lynk explained several reasons why the determi-
nation would play a helpful role in this situation:
First, it would encourage member states to
take all reasonable steps to prevent or dis-
courage national institutions, organizations
and corporations within their jurisdiction
from engaging in activities that would in-
vest in, or sustain, the occupation. Second,
it would encourage national and interna-
tional courts to apply the appropriate laws
within their jurisdiction that would prevent
or discourage cooperation with entities that
invest in, or sustain, the occupation. Third,
it would invite the international community
to review its various forms of cooperation
with the occupying power as long as it
continues to administer the occupation un-
lawfully. Fourth, it would provide a solid
precedent for the international community
when judging other occupations of long
duration. Most of all, such a determination
would confirm the moral importance of up-
holding the international rule of law when
aiding the besieged and the vulnerable.
While Rapporteur reports only document, ana-
lyze and recommend, they can carry a moral force and
they can alert the governments and peoples of the
world to injustices and situations that need attention
and action toward their resolution. Prof Lynk in his
second Report helps direct attention to the possibility
that the Israeli-Palestine dispute and conflict lacks a
solution because it is not properly understood. There
are many calls for a peaceful resolution and for talks
between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but maybe
those are not possible as long as Israel is mistakedly
seen as a legitimate occupier of the Palestinian Territo-
Page 21
ries.
Notes:
1. Quotes in this article are from the “Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian
territories occupied since 1967,” GA, 2
nd
, 23/10/2017 A/72/556.
The Report is available online at:
.nsfGet?Op en&DS=A/72/556&Lang=E. All the Special Rappor-
teur reports can be accessed from: https://ap.ohchrorgdouments
/dpage_e .aspx?m=91.
2. General Assembly resolution 377(V) is known as the Uniting
for Peace resolution. Adopted in 1950, the resolution resolves that
if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the
permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility to
act as required to maintain international peace and security … ,
the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with
the view to making recommendations to Members … in order to
restore international peace and security.
[Editor’s Note: South African anti-apartheid activist and journal-
ist, Dumisani Kumelo served as the Ambassador to the UN from
South Africa for ten years, 1999 to 2009. There he played an
active role concerning the Palestinian Question. The following
article in his memory first appeared on January 23, 2019 on the
memory-of-dumisani-kumalo/. (No longer available.)]
(2019)
In Memory of Dumisani
Kumalo, South African
Ambassador to the UN
by Ronda Hauben
My delegation believes that silence on the
situation in the Middle East is more dan-
gerous than even meetings where there
might be a raising of temperatures or heat.
Dumisani Kumalo
It was with great sadness that I learned the news
of the passing of Dumisani Kumalo on Sunday, Janu-
ary 20, 2019. Ambassador Kumalo had been appointed
by Nelson Mandela in 1999 to serve as South Africa’s
UN Ambassador, which he did until February 2009.
For me it was the end of an era when, ten years
ago, Dumisani Kumalo left the UN. At that time, a
farewell party held on the 4
th
floor in the Delegates
Lounge, demonstrated why he was so special a figure
at the UN. A number of delegates attended, some with
their wives or husbands as well.
In the brief speech he gave to his friends and
colleagues who had come to say how much he would
be missed, Kumalo described how as a child growing
up in apartheid South Africa his father told him that
help for the people of South Africa in their fight
against apartheid would come from the UN – from the
United Nations. Little did his father know, Kumalo
said, that the young boy would become the Ambassa-
dor from South Africa at the United Nations.
The significance of this memory, Kumalo ex-
plained, was that it was an example of the hope that
many people around the world have in the UN. This is
why it is so important, he said, that people at the UN
strive to live up to that hope.
What Ambassador Kumalo represented at the UN
is something I have found rare among UN officials. He
was someone with a vision of the UN being the cham-
pion of the people. Moreover, he was willing to strug-
gle against those for whom the UN only meant power
politics rather than the fight for a better world.
One of my most memorable experiences at the
UN was in early January 2007 when Kumalo stepped
down as the head of the G77 and China. He was prac-
tically in tears as he recounted how during the South
African presidency of the G77 and China, there had
been a series of struggles against the U.S. Ambassador
John Bolton’s view of how to restructure the UN. The
G77 fought for a multilateral UN and won some im-
portant battles.
Kumalo was then leaving but one scene of
struggle, the G77, to enter another, a new set of battles.
As the UN Ambassador for South Africa, he was be-
ginning a two year term (January 2007 – December
2008) when South Africa became one of the ten
elected members of the UN Security Council. I
watched the first meeting of the newly constituted
Security Council of 2007. I was surprised and de-
lighted to see how several of the elected members (as
opposed to the five permanent members) took up to
outline the problems they saw with the Security
Council and the need for change.
When South Africa took over the rotating presi-
dency of the Security Council for the month of March
2007, Kumalo made it clear he was there to answer
questions from journalists, which he did diligently
through the course of the month long presidency.
Often during his term on the Security Council he
shared his frustration when the Council failed to issue
a needed statement or resolution. One such example,
was when in January 2008, the Council failed to ex-
Page 22
press its support for Palestinians suffering because of
Israel’s closure of the crossing points into Gaza.
Another striking memory is of the South African
and Indonesian Ambassadors’ speaking out in response
to the British Ambassador’s proposal that the Security
Council only have consultations which are closed
meetings, rather than having open meetings on the
issue of Palestine. The British Ambassador argued the
differences among the Ambassadors led to sharp ex-
changes. Kumalo disagreed, stating unequivocally that
the disagreements made it ever more important to have
open meetings as this was a subject of vital interest
and importance to the public.
There is a body of international law and deci-
sions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This
forms a framework of law to determine issues the
Security Council is considering. During South Africa’s
2007-2008 term on the Security Council, several of the
P-5 Ambassadors, especially the U.S. Ambassador,
demonstrated little regard for this framework in de-
termining the U.S. position on the issues before the
Security Council. Kumalo’s position would in general
be consistent with the tenets of international law and
the ICJ legal decisions.
For example, when Israel closed the crossing
points to Gaza, the U.S. supported Israel in efforts at
the Security Council, claiming that Israel’s action was
acceptable given its right to defend itself in retaliation
for rockets being fired into Southern Israel from Gaza.
Kumalo and others on the Security Council con-
demned Israel’s actions as a form of collective punish-
ment, forbidden under international law. Kumalo also
argued that Israel as the occupying state had obliga-
tions to support and provide for the well being of the
Palestinians under the provisions of international law.
Kumalo supported the principles he argued were
in line with international law. Often he would be crit-
icized in South African newspapers for his actions. An
example was his opposition to interference in the in-
ternal affairs of a sovereign country. When there was
pressure in the Security Council to become involved
with the vote for President in Zimbabwe, Kumalo
argued this was not a proper issue for the Security
Council to become involved with. He maintained that
there were other UN organs that could be involved, not
the Security Council.
When Miriam McKeba died, the South African
Mission to the UN held a program to honor her life and
contributions. A number of delegates spoke describing
the important role McKeba had played in the struggle
for South African independence. Kumalo’s talk en-
couraged people to carry on her struggle and to dance
to her music.
At his farewell gathering at the UN in 2009,
Ambassador Kumalo danced with his guests. His
farewell presented the challenge to others to carry on
the struggle that he had been such an important part of
in his ten years of service as the Ambassador to the
UN from South Africa.
[Editor’s Note: The following article first appeared on February
/2019/02/01/on-israels-annexation-of-palestinian-territory-
michael-lynks-report/. (No longer available.)]
(2019)
On Israel’s Annexation of
Palestinian Territory:
Michael Lynk’s Report
by Ronda Hauben
In 2017 Michael Lynk presented his first Re-
port to the United Nations General Assembly.
Lynk’s official title is the Special Rapporteur on the
Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territo-
ries Occupied Since 1967. The 2017 report analyzed
the obligations of an occupying nation and what hap-
pens when the occupier fails to fulfill the require-
ments of a legitimate occupier.
1
Lynk’s report specified criteria for a legal oc-
cupation. They are the satisfaction of four require-
ments:
1. There is an absolute prohibition against annex-
ation of any of the occupied territory.
2. The length of the occupation must be finite, mean-
ing it must be ended in a reasonable period of time.
3. It must be carried out in good faith.
4. It must be carried out in a way that meets the best
interests of the occupied.
Lynk demonstrated that Israel has failed to
meet the requirements of a legal occupation, and he
called for several actions by the UN. Among these
actions was that the General Assembly commission a
UN study on the legality of Israel’s continued occu-
pation of the Palestinian territory.
He proposed that one of the reasons that it has
not been possible to resolve the Palestinian – Israeli
Page 23
conflict is because Israel is mistakenly seen as the
legitimate occupier of the Palestinian Territories.
Lynk proposes that a more accurate under-
standing of the facts and how they apply given the
principles of international law could help member
states to act in accord with their obligations under
International law, and it could help to clarify what
actions are possible at the UN and the International
Court of Justice.
Lynk reported at a UN press briefing on Oct
24, 2018 that there has been considerable interest in
his 2017 Report and that he had been invited to pres-
ent the keynote at conferences discussing the issues
it raises.
Recently, Lynk presented a related report.
Even though Israel will not allow him to visit the
area he is to investigate, in this 2018 Report he docu-
mented conditions based on information he gathered
by various means including correspondence, video
conferences, and meetings held in Amman, Jordan.
Among his conclusions is that Israel “has twice for-
mally annexed occupied territory under its control:
East Jerusalem (1967, 1980) and the Golan Heights
(1981).”
2
Also, his 2018 report documents the deteriora-
tion of the Human Rights situation since his last re-
port. And he described some of the gross ways that
Israel has treated the Palestinians during the period
since 2017.
In the process of documenting some of the
most urgent concerns he identified, he observed the
continuing expansion and development of the settle-
ments, and the proposal of legislation and actions by
various officials which are aimed at formally annex-
ing parts of the West Bank and other Palestinian Ter-
ritory.
Beyond his 2017 report, the 2018 report partly
focused on an analysis of the issue of “the question
of annexation, examining both the applicable legal
framework as well as the current situation in the Oc-
cupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).”
In modern international law, Lynk points out
there is a general prohibition against annexation.
Also Lynk documents several different ways that
Israel has “entrenched its de facto annexation of the
West Bank” toward “imposing intentionally-irrevers-
ible changes to occupied territory proscribed by in-
ternational humanitarian law.” He refers specifically
to the 230 settlements, to the 400,000 Israeli settlers,
to the extension of Israeli laws to the West Bank, to
the unequal access to resources, to a discriminatory
legal regime, and to “explicit statements by a wide
circle of senior Israeli political leaders calling for the
formal annexation of parts or all of the West Bank.”
3
Lynk describes some of how the UN has help-
ed stop some of the acts of annexation around the
world since its founding. Particularly pointing to the
principles of international law relating to occupation,
Lynk writes, “Annexation is utterly incompatible
with the foundational principles of the laws of occu-
pation, which stipulates that the occupying power’s
tenure is inherently temporary, not permanent or
even indefinite, and that it must rule the territory as a
trustee for the benefit of the protected population
under occupation, and not for its own aggrandize-
ment. Annexation is also profoundly in breach of the
fundamental right to self-determination, an ‘erga
omnes’ [statutory, applying to all] obligation under
international law.”
4
In his 2018 report, Lynk documents a number
of specific ways that Israel’s actions in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories are effectively carrying out or
have carried out an annexation of “a significant part
of the West Bank and is treating this territory as its
own.”
5
On pages 18 and 19 of his 2018 report, Lynk
lists a series of recommendations for Israel and for
the International Community. To Israel he recom-
mends compliance with international standards and
laws, and to the international community he recom-
mends holding Israel to international standards, ac-
countability and to the obligations of international
humanitarian law.
And Lynk recommends the international com-
munity “commission a United Nations study on the
legality of Israel’s annexation and continued occupa-
tion of the Palestinian territory.”
For two years in a row, Michael Lynk has is-
sued reports that give a better understanding of the
Israel-Palestine question which may help in the ef-
fort to find a just and lasting solution to this major
outstanding question.
Notes:
1. “UN Rapporteur Michael Lynk Questions Legality of Israeli
Occupation,” Ronda Hauben, January 30, 2018. [Reprinted in
this issue.]
2. See: p. 7, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/G
A73/A_73_45717.docx.
Page 24
Y/GA73/A_73_45717.docx.
4. See: p. 8,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/G
A73/A_73_45717.docx.
5. See: p. 18,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/
GA73/A_73_45717.docx.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Ronda Hauben
William Rohler
Norman O. Thompson
Michael Hauben (1973-2001)
Jay Hauben
The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.
Articles can be submitted via e-mail:
mailto:[email protected]
Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in a
non profit publication provided credit is given, with name
of author and source of article cited.
The opinions expressed in articles are those of their
authors and not necessarily the opinions of the Amateur
Computerist newsletter. We welcome submissions from
a spectrum of viewpoints.
ELECTRONIC EDITION
ACN Webpage:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
All Amateur Computerist issues from 1988 to the present are
available at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf.
Page 25
