The Amateur
Computerist
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
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 3
Response to Israeli Attacks on Gaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9
The World Has Been Watching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12
Israel Attempts to Justify Its Attack on Gaza. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16
Need to End Israeli Siege of Gaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
Principles to Guide a Palestinian-Israeli Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23
Fr. Brockmann In the Shadow of Deep Crises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31
Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35
Questions Legality of Israeli Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42
In Memory of Dumisani Kumalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 45
On Israel’s Annexation of Palestinian Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 48
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
supported. 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
Page 1
the 20
th
century. 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 Mandates. The British mandate
for Palestine was meant to be a transitory phase until Palestine attained the
tion-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 colonies and announced
to the UN that it was going to end its Mandate and withdraw from
Palestine. The UN created a Special Committee to prepare for the
consideration 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 economic union” and an interna-
tionalization 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 implemented 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:
https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/.) 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 Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). (See:
https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees.) In addition to the Nakba,
displacement and dispossession of Palestinians by Israeli government set-
.org/en/2023/sc15424.doc.htm.)
Over the last 75 years, the partition of Palestine has caused many
difficulties that the UN has been called on to deal with. The articles here
document a little of how poorly the UN did from 2008 to 2019.
Page 2
There is a need for a broad perspective of what has gone on in the past
75+ years in order to determine the direction for a just solution to the
Question of Palestine. 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 discussion 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 debated 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 temperatures 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 statement by the British Ambassador Sir John
Sawers. The British ambassador was questioning the usefulness of the
Security Council discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian question.
This exchange followed the events of the previous week. The
Security Council had spent a week struggling to agree on a non-binding
Presidential statement 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
Page 3
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 attacks
into Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself.
Several members of the Security Council explained 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 prohibition 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 ambassador 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 chairmanship 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 consider 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 unacceptable 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
Page 4
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 withdrawn 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 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
intimidation 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, however, 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 standards 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 occupying 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 crossing points … . It controls the flow of
food, medicines, water and electricity. In short, Israel, the occupying
power as defined under international law has transformed 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 unaccept-
able. 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
Page 5
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 without 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 discussions, 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. Deputy 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. delegation 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
Page 6
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. statement had been modified, but it included a description of the
attacks on Israel as coming from “terrorists” and wording that Israel was
suspending its closure of the crossing points.
Sources describing the Security Council’s response to the modified
statement on Friday were contradictory. Some sources claimed that 14
members of the Security Council were prepared to accept the modified
U.S. statement, but that Libya would not agree. Another source indicated
that the British and U.S. ambassadors 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 wanted 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 statement 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 General
Assembly in 1975, explained that “The Bureau deeply regrets that the
Security Council, having considered 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
Page 7
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 restate 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 responsibility 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 obligation with regard to peace and security in the
Middle East and particularly with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian 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.
Page 8
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.
[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 scheduled 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 informally 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
Page 9
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 Palestinians was not a disproportionate response.
Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin indicated that there were
different views among Security Council 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 statement had been crafted with some under-
standing by the Israeli government that it was issued, and he expected that
the parties assumed that there were certain responsibilities given that the
Security Council had issued a statement.
The Palestinian observer at the UN explained that if Israel didn’t
Page 10
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.
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 journalists, “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 following very closely the
situation in New York, said Yeves, and he gave journalists a copy of
Brockmann’s statement.
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 aggression 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
Page 11
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 million 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 police 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
attempting 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 violations of interna-
tional humanitarian law regardless of what country may be
responsible 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
Palestinian 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 available.)]
(2009)
The World Has Been Watching
The UN and the Failure to Act to Stop Attack on Gaza
Page 12
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 previous 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 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, Brockmann 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 Council 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 commit-
ment to having open meetings of the Security Council – especially when
there was a dispute that couldn’t be resolved – the new members and
Page 13
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 ambassadors, 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 Ambassa-
dor, Maged A. Abdelaziz, told the press that, “we find regrettably that the
Security Council is downgrading its response.”
3
He was referring 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
statement. 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 demon-
strated that Israel was committing widespread collective punishment 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
Page 14
security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility
the Security Council acts on their behalf.”
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 crossings into
Gaza.
6
There have been ongoing and growing demonstrations 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 failure 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 situation 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]
available.)
See: also Ronda Hauben “Security Council and Others at UN Respond to Israeli Attacks
Page 15
on Gaza, Press statement issued by Security Council after 5 hours of consultations,”
OhmyNews International, Dec. 28, 2008.http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/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?article_class=16&no=3816
89&rel_no=1. (No longer available.)
3. Egypt Media Stakeout: Permanent Representative of Egypt, H.E. Mr. Maged A.
/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 property 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_Resolu
tion_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 Indonesia 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 12, 2009 at: http://english.ohmynews
.com/articleview/article _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
Page 16
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 international 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 political 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
Page 17
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 (Interview 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
Page 18
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 “unac-
ceptable 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 resolution, 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 and the interna-
tional 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 international 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
international law. The struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determi-
nation 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.
Page 19
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. January 9, 2009. http://downloads.unmultimedia.org/radio/en
/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
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 Commissioner 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 destruction in Gaza to
schools, universities, residential buildings, factories, shops and farms.
Page 20
(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 distinguish 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, including 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.
Both AbuZayd and Holmes emphasized the impossibility 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 continuously
(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 humanitarian and commercial
supplies,” she stressed. “Reconstruction demands open borders that enable
the importation 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 population – 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 commercial 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
Page 21
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 themselves 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 responsibil-
ity as the occupying power in this context, because of its control of Gaza’s
borders with Israel, to respect the relevant provisions of international
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 member of the Security
Council to these two heart wrenching 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.”
Page 22
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
/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.o hmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400
no=381689&rel_no=1. (No longer available online. Available in this issue.)
[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 Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, titled “Gaza:
The Case for Middle East Peace.” The following article is a report about that panel. It
.ohmynews.com/articleview/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
Page 23
by Israel and Egypt closing the border 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 devastation, 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 exception surprisingly was a panel held at the
World Economic Forum in Davos last month. The panel session was titled
“Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace.” David Ignatius of the Washing-
ton Post was the moderator. 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 comments, 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 agreement.
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 between 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 democracy. So if we
would like to see democracy take root, then we must respect first of all the
Page 24
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 government 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 children 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. administration could do to help the situation.
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 maintained, “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 occupiers?” “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 opportunity, 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
Page 25
them water, to give them medicine.”
He added that the “Palestinians had believed the call for them to
practice democracy, to have an election.”
But then he described how when, “Hamas won, and half an hour,
twenty-five minutes after the announcement 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 reaction of
destruction carried out by Israel.”
Moussa also referred to Israel’s failure to respond 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 significant statement of
what is needed to deal with the crisis facing the Palestinians in Gaza.
Part III. – Principles for UN Actions in Palestinian Crisis
Page 26
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 participation 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 established 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 General 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 Construction of a Wall in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
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 Na-
tions.” In addition the General Assembly by a large majority gave its
approval to the decision. As such the Advisory Opinion is one of the
authoritative statements of the applicable international law relating to the
framework for peace in the Middle East.
While this law isn’t binding on three of the Quartet 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
UN as a member of the Quartet is bound by the Advisory 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 participa-
tion in the Quartet.
The Secretary-General or his representative is by law obliged to be
guided by the Opinion and to endeavor 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-
Page 27
Palestinian context is the occupation, not any act of Hamas or others.
He notes that the right of the Palestinian people for self-determina-
tion 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 reconcilia-
tion between the two major Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, Dugard
maintains. The Quartet explains Dugard, instead “pursues a divisive 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,
Page 28
established and accepted by most of the international community via its
support for the Advisory Opinion. The Palestinians are in a situation
where they suffer from Israeli occupation.
These principles include:
1) Recognizing the Palestinian right to resist occupation.
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 conducive to recognizing and implementing
the principles of international law, not in a way that treats the Palestinians
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 discusses the role the UN Secretary-General
has played in the Quartet. The U.S., the EU, Russia and the UN (repre-
sented by the Secretary-General) are part of the Quartet which is suppos-
edly 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 appropriate for the
Secretary-General acting on behalf of the UN to discard these principles.
Dugard’s report proposes 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 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
Page 29
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 discussion 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, Complicating 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 Situation 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 consequences 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.]
Page 30
(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 Palstine continues 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 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 As-
sembly 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
©2009 Ronda Hauben
Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann (far left) with
reporters and staff at the UN
Page 31
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 Palestin-
ian 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 community
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 humanitar-
ian situation in Gaza immediately after the aggression. Dr. Cahill’s report
was issued on Wednesday 19 August, on the occasion of World Humani-
tarian 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 immedi-
ate measures are not taken, now that winter is approaching. Now is the
time to demonstrate, with actions and not simply words, a true commit-
ment to the concept of the Responsibility to Protect.
Page 32
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 availability 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 humani-
tarian 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 Kennedy, 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 beginning. 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 effectiveness. According to data from the latest poll by the
Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes project, carried out in 24 nations
and the Palestinian Territories, there has been a noticeable improvement
in the perception of the United Nations. This gives us happiness, 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.
Page 33
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 something 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
something 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 multilateralism, 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 (selectively 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 conscious-
ness of mankind that allow us to clarify the main elements of this other
Page 34
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 Copenhagen [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 continued. In 2009, the Security Council addressed the settlement
question again and also in 2011. The following article documenting the U.S. veto first
_130_cosponsors/. (No longer available.)]
(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 coming 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 Council chambers.
Page 35
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 International 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. President 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 postponement 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 Resolution 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 Council. 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 question why the UN Secretariat for Security
Council Affairs did not bring these requirements to the attention of the
Brazilian presidency sooner since the draft Resolution had been available
Page 36
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 Jerusalem) 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 Council 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 condemn-
ing settlements would prevent Israel from negotiating with the Palestin-
ians. Passing the draft Resolution would only lead to more settlements, she
warned. The Security Council was not the place to take up this problem,
Page 37
according to Ambassador Rice.
Speaking in favor of its vote supporting the draft Resolution, was the
United Kingdom’s Ambassador 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
prejudged 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 negotiating
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 Ambassador 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 Palestinian 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
Ambassador Viotti expressed the importance of welcoming the interna-
tional community, including the Security 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 interna-
tional 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 concession, 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.
Page 38
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 Permanent 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 Ambassadors filed out of the
Security Council there was little comment to journalists. Only the
Lebanese Ambassador and the Palestinian Ambassador stayed to speak at
the stakeout.
At the stakeout after the Security Council meeting, Riyad Mansour,
the representative for the Permanent Observer for Palestine, was asked if
the Palestinian 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 provides 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 interna-
Page 39
tional 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 settlement activity from being
adopted, demonstrated the 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 confiscation 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 Security 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 international
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
Page 40
member of the Security Council 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 Palestinian
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 appointed 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.
Page 41
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 Palestinian 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 obligated to
pressure South Africa to cease its occupation.
Lynk’s criteria for a legal occupation are the satisfaction 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, meaning 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 occupied territory in good
faith including acting in full compliance with its duties and obligations
under international 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 “extraordinary 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
Page 42
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
expeditious a time period as possible, under international
supervision.
… that the United Nations General Assembly:
a. Commission a United Nations study on the legality of
Israel’s continued occupation 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 international law,
including the duty of non-recognition, 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 Question 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 determination would play
a helpful role in this situation:
First, it would encourage member states to take all reasonable
steps to prevent or discourage national institutions, organiza-
tions and corporations within their jurisdiction from engaging
in activities that would invest in, or sustain, the occupation.
Second, it would encourage national and international 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
Page 43
international community to review its various forms of co-
operation with the occupying power as long as it continues to
administer the occupation unlawfully. 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, analyze 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 Territories.
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:
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access .nsfGet?Op
en&DS=A/72/556&Lang=E. All the Special Rapporteur 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 journalist, 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 netizenblog at: https://blogs.taz.de
/netizenblog/2019/01/23/in-memory-of-dumisani-kumalo/. (No longer available.)]
Page 44
(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 dangerous 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, January 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 Ambassador from
South Africa at the United Nations.
The significance of this memory, Kumalo explained, 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 champion 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.
Page 45
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 practically 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
important 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 beginning 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 delighted 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 presidency 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 express 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 exchanges. Kumalo disagreed, stating unequivo-
cally 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 decisions of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice (ICJ). This forms a framework of law to determine
issues the Security Council is considering. During South Africa’s 2007-
Page 46
2008 term on the Security Council, several of the P-5 Ambassadors,
especially the U.S. Ambassador, demonstrated little regard for this frame-
work in determining 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 condemned Israel’s actions as a form of collective
punishment, forbidden under international law. Kumalo also argued that
Israel as the occupying state had obligations 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 criticized in South African newspa-
pers for his actions. An example was his opposition to interference in the
internal affairs of a sovereign country. When there was pressure in the
Security Council to become involved with the vote for President in Zim-
babwe, 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 encouraged 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 1, 2019 on the
palestinian-territory-michael-lynks-report/. (No longer available.)]
Page 47
(2019)
On Israel’s Annexation of Palestinian
Territory: Michael Lynk’s Report
by Ronda Hauben
In 2017 Michael Lynk presented his first Report to the United Na-
tions General Assembly. Lynk’s official title is the Special Rapporteur
on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occu-
pied Since 1967. The 2017 report analyzed the obligations of an occu-
pying nation and what happens when the occupier fails to fulfill the re-
quirements of a legitimate occupier.
1
Lynk’s report specified criteria for a legal occupation. They are
the satisfaction of four requirements:
1. There is an absolute prohibition against annexation of any of the oc-
cupied territory.
2. The length of the occupation must be finite, meaning 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 oc-
cupied.
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 occupation of the Palestinian
territory.
He proposed that one of the reasons that it has not been possible
to resolve the Palestinian – Israeli conflict is because Israel is mistak-
enly seen as the legitimate occupier of the Palestinian Territories.
Lynk proposes that a more accurate understanding 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
Page 48
invited to present 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 documented 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 deterioration of the Human
Rights situation since his last report. 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 settlements, and the proposal of legislation and actions by various
officials which are aimed at formally annexing parts of the West Bank
and other Palestinian Territory.
Beyond his 2017 report, the 2018 report partly focused on an anal-
ysis of the issue of “the question of annexation, examining both the ap-
plicable legal framework as well as the current situation in the Occu-
pied 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-irreversible changes to occupied
territory proscribed by international humanitarian law.” He refers spe-
cifically 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 re-
sources, to a discriminatory legal regime, and to “explicit statements by
a wide circle of senior Israeli political leaders calling for the formal an-
nexation of parts or all of the West Bank.”
3
Lynk describes some of how the UN has helped 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
Page 49
principles of the laws of occupation, which stipulates that the occupy-
ing power’s tenure is inherently temporary, not permanent or even in-
definite, and that it must rule the territory as a trustee for the benefit of
the protected population under occupation, and not for its own aggran-
dizement. 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 effec-
tively 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 rec-
ommendations for Israel and for the International Community. To Israel
he recommends compliance with international standards and laws, and
to the international community he recommends holding Israel to inter-
national standards, accountability and to the obligations of international
humanitarian law.
And Lynk recommends the international community “commission
a United Nations study on the legality of Israel’s annexation and contin-
ued occupation of the Palestinian territory.”
For two years in a row, Michael Lynk has issued reports that give
a better understanding of the Israel-Palestine question which may help
in the effort 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/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx.
3. See: pp. 7-8,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx.
4. See: p. 8, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx.
5. See: p. 18,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx.
Page 50
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 neces-
sarily 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 51
