16 oct 2014
Abbas refusing to submit to pressure from Kerry
Israeli media reported, today, that PM Benjamin Netanyahu tried to convince UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to eliminate the international investigation regarding the latest Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip.
According to the Palestinian News Network, an Israeli paper stated that Netanyahu alongside many Israeli officials during their meetings with Ban, and tried to convince him of not proceeding with an international investigation around the case of Gaza, claiming that Israel is pursuing "private investigations" that 'will be shown to the UN'.
Additionally, the UN chief is said to have stressed that the decision of the international investigation cannot be withdrawn, saying that he will await the UNHRC investigation results, and that he wishes Israel to assist the council members in the procedure.
Reliable sources reiterated to the PNN today's news from Haaretz, which focused on US Secretary of State John Kerry's pressure on Palestinian President Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel and adopt different claims, that Abbas might refrain from going to the UN Security Council.
President Abbas has reportedly refused.
Palestinian sources say that Kerry has assured that he had new ideas for restored negotiations, but wanted to take approval from president Abbas before revealing any details.
PLO secretary, Yasser Abed-Rabbo, said that the Palestinian Authority has refused to go back to negotiations as before, since they fruited nothing but growing Israeli persecution and aggression, topped off by the latest Israeli assault on Gaza which killed nearly 2,150 people.
Israeli media reported, today, that PM Benjamin Netanyahu tried to convince UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to eliminate the international investigation regarding the latest Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip.
According to the Palestinian News Network, an Israeli paper stated that Netanyahu alongside many Israeli officials during their meetings with Ban, and tried to convince him of not proceeding with an international investigation around the case of Gaza, claiming that Israel is pursuing "private investigations" that 'will be shown to the UN'.
Additionally, the UN chief is said to have stressed that the decision of the international investigation cannot be withdrawn, saying that he will await the UNHRC investigation results, and that he wishes Israel to assist the council members in the procedure.
Reliable sources reiterated to the PNN today's news from Haaretz, which focused on US Secretary of State John Kerry's pressure on Palestinian President Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel and adopt different claims, that Abbas might refrain from going to the UN Security Council.
President Abbas has reportedly refused.
Palestinian sources say that Kerry has assured that he had new ideas for restored negotiations, but wanted to take approval from president Abbas before revealing any details.
PLO secretary, Yasser Abed-Rabbo, said that the Palestinian Authority has refused to go back to negotiations as before, since they fruited nothing but growing Israeli persecution and aggression, topped off by the latest Israeli assault on Gaza which killed nearly 2,150 people.
15 oct 2014
Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar on Tuesday dubbed the recent statements released by the UN’s Ban Ki-moon on Hamas resistance tunnels a reflection of Ban’s “double standards” and “political hypocrisy.” Zahhar said in a brief statement that the Israeli occupation’s military arsenal and nuclear reactor are far more destructive than Hamas’s resistance tunnels.
Zahhar’s comment was voiced shortly after Ban Ki-moon said following a field visit to the Gaza Strip and Israeli border areas on Tuesday: “No one needs live under the constant threat and fear of rockets and tunnels digging underground.”
Observes found Ban’s surprise after entering a Hamas resistance tunnel an “over-exaggerated” and “biased” reaction for “hadn’t Israel’s rockets killed at least 2,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians and innocent children, and left some 11,000 wounded?” a political analyst inquires. “Are Palestinians, or any colonized nation on Earth, expected to remain tight-lipped when their own and only homes are being turned into mounds of rubble?” another wonders.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (PNGO), along with a consortium of Palestinian organizations for human rights, said in a joint statement on Tuesday afternoon: “We were expecting Ki-moon to drop in Gaza during the latest Israeli offensive, as a solidarity move with the Strip, and to use his moral power to halt the aggression”
The organizations expressed hope that the UN’s top official would work on restoring Gazans’ rights, alleviate the casualties’ agony, and push for halting the Israeli occupation.
The statement further spoke out against the shocking apathy and complicity maintained by the international community vis-à-vis Israel’s systematic terrorism and flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws, felonies that often amount to “war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
The institutions pushed for the prosecution of Israeli war criminals so as to ensure that aggression against Gaza civilians would not re-occur in any form.
Zahhar’s comment was voiced shortly after Ban Ki-moon said following a field visit to the Gaza Strip and Israeli border areas on Tuesday: “No one needs live under the constant threat and fear of rockets and tunnels digging underground.”
Observes found Ban’s surprise after entering a Hamas resistance tunnel an “over-exaggerated” and “biased” reaction for “hadn’t Israel’s rockets killed at least 2,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians and innocent children, and left some 11,000 wounded?” a political analyst inquires. “Are Palestinians, or any colonized nation on Earth, expected to remain tight-lipped when their own and only homes are being turned into mounds of rubble?” another wonders.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (PNGO), along with a consortium of Palestinian organizations for human rights, said in a joint statement on Tuesday afternoon: “We were expecting Ki-moon to drop in Gaza during the latest Israeli offensive, as a solidarity move with the Strip, and to use his moral power to halt the aggression”
The organizations expressed hope that the UN’s top official would work on restoring Gazans’ rights, alleviate the casualties’ agony, and push for halting the Israeli occupation.
The statement further spoke out against the shocking apathy and complicity maintained by the international community vis-à-vis Israel’s systematic terrorism and flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws, felonies that often amount to “war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
The institutions pushed for the prosecution of Israeli war criminals so as to ensure that aggression against Gaza civilians would not re-occur in any form.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon demanded Tuesday an independent probe into Israel's deadly shelling of a school during the Gaza conflict, expressing shock at the devastation during a visit to the Palestinian enclave.
Two days after donor states pledged $5.4 billion to rebuild Gaza, Ban toured some of the areas worst hit during the July-August war between Israel and the territory's Hamas rulers.
"No amount of (UN) Security Council sessions, reports or briefings could have prepared me for what I witnessed today," he said after being driven through the ruins of Gaza City's Shujaiyya district and the nearby Jabaliya refugee camp.
The secretary general was speaking at a UN school in Jabaliya, where Israeli tank shells slammed into two classrooms on June 30, killing at least 14 people sheltering there.
"The shelling of the United Nations school is absolutely unacceptable. These actions must be fully and independently investigated," he said.
Relatives of the dead held up posters showing their loved ones and disabled casualties waited to see Ban.
The UN chief also called on Palestinian militant groups to cease firing rockets at Israel from the territory.
"I repeat here in Gaza the rockets fired by Hamas and other military groups must end. They have brought nothing but suffering," he said.
One classroom, now repaired, had the words "every human being has the right to life" written on its walls.
After meeting with members of a new Palestinian consensus government, Ban told reporters the devastation he had seen was worse than that caused in the previous conflict of winter 2008-2009.
"This is a much more serious destruction than what I saw in 2009," he said.
Ban, who last visited in 2012, said at a donors conference in Egypt Sunday that his trip to the enclave was "to listen directly to the people of Gaza."
He said the international pledges of reconstruction aid were "quite encouraging."
Donations include $1 billion from Qatar, $212 million from the United States and 450 million euros from the EU.
Provision of the aid will be overseen jointly by the UN and the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, amid concerns that unchecked imports could fall into the hands of militants, including those of the Islamist movement Hamas.
Hamas and its rival Fatah, which dominates the PA, signed a unity deal in April under which the consensus government was sworn in.
Ban welcomed the rapprochement.
'Great opportunity'
"This is a great opportunity to unite the West Bank and Gaza under one Palestinian leadership," he said.
Ban said the funds would go towards the "urgently needed" building of infrastructure and homes in Gaza, where nearly 2,200 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed and tens of thousands displaced in the 50-day war.
On the Israeli side, 73 people were killed, mainly soldiers.
At Sunday's conference in Cairo, Ban said "the root causes of the recent hostilities" were "a restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century, the continued denial of Palestinian rights and the lack of tangible progress in peace negotiations."
On Tuesday, he urged Israeli and Palestinian leaders to revive peace talks.
"I'm asking the leaders of both parties ... to resume their talks," he said. "Otherwise it's a matter of time that the violence will continue."
Ban said a first shipment of building materials was on its way to Gaza through Israel under an agreement reached last month.
"I'm very happy to announce that the first truck carrying ... construction materials is coming to Gaza today," he said.
The Israeli army said it had "transferred construction materials to the Gaza Strip in order to facilitate rehabilitation projects."
It said the supplies were "expected to include 600 tons of cement, 50 trucks of construction aggregates and 10 trucks of metal."
On a visit Monday to the West Bank city of Ramallah, Ban criticized continued Israeli settlement expansion.
"I once again strongly condemn the continued settlement activity by Israel," he said, echoing international condemnation of plans for new settler homes on occupied Palestinian territory.
The White House and European Union have criticized Israel's approval in September of 2,600 new settlement units in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.
The issue has caused the breakdown of numerous rounds of peace talks
Two days after donor states pledged $5.4 billion to rebuild Gaza, Ban toured some of the areas worst hit during the July-August war between Israel and the territory's Hamas rulers.
"No amount of (UN) Security Council sessions, reports or briefings could have prepared me for what I witnessed today," he said after being driven through the ruins of Gaza City's Shujaiyya district and the nearby Jabaliya refugee camp.
The secretary general was speaking at a UN school in Jabaliya, where Israeli tank shells slammed into two classrooms on June 30, killing at least 14 people sheltering there.
"The shelling of the United Nations school is absolutely unacceptable. These actions must be fully and independently investigated," he said.
Relatives of the dead held up posters showing their loved ones and disabled casualties waited to see Ban.
The UN chief also called on Palestinian militant groups to cease firing rockets at Israel from the territory.
"I repeat here in Gaza the rockets fired by Hamas and other military groups must end. They have brought nothing but suffering," he said.
One classroom, now repaired, had the words "every human being has the right to life" written on its walls.
After meeting with members of a new Palestinian consensus government, Ban told reporters the devastation he had seen was worse than that caused in the previous conflict of winter 2008-2009.
"This is a much more serious destruction than what I saw in 2009," he said.
Ban, who last visited in 2012, said at a donors conference in Egypt Sunday that his trip to the enclave was "to listen directly to the people of Gaza."
He said the international pledges of reconstruction aid were "quite encouraging."
Donations include $1 billion from Qatar, $212 million from the United States and 450 million euros from the EU.
Provision of the aid will be overseen jointly by the UN and the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, amid concerns that unchecked imports could fall into the hands of militants, including those of the Islamist movement Hamas.
Hamas and its rival Fatah, which dominates the PA, signed a unity deal in April under which the consensus government was sworn in.
Ban welcomed the rapprochement.
'Great opportunity'
"This is a great opportunity to unite the West Bank and Gaza under one Palestinian leadership," he said.
Ban said the funds would go towards the "urgently needed" building of infrastructure and homes in Gaza, where nearly 2,200 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed and tens of thousands displaced in the 50-day war.
On the Israeli side, 73 people were killed, mainly soldiers.
At Sunday's conference in Cairo, Ban said "the root causes of the recent hostilities" were "a restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century, the continued denial of Palestinian rights and the lack of tangible progress in peace negotiations."
On Tuesday, he urged Israeli and Palestinian leaders to revive peace talks.
"I'm asking the leaders of both parties ... to resume their talks," he said. "Otherwise it's a matter of time that the violence will continue."
Ban said a first shipment of building materials was on its way to Gaza through Israel under an agreement reached last month.
"I'm very happy to announce that the first truck carrying ... construction materials is coming to Gaza today," he said.
The Israeli army said it had "transferred construction materials to the Gaza Strip in order to facilitate rehabilitation projects."
It said the supplies were "expected to include 600 tons of cement, 50 trucks of construction aggregates and 10 trucks of metal."
On a visit Monday to the West Bank city of Ramallah, Ban criticized continued Israeli settlement expansion.
"I once again strongly condemn the continued settlement activity by Israel," he said, echoing international condemnation of plans for new settler homes on occupied Palestinian territory.
The White House and European Union have criticized Israel's approval in September of 2,600 new settlement units in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.
The issue has caused the breakdown of numerous rounds of peace talks
14 oct 2014
Hamas on Tuesday urged the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, to implement serious measures to assuage the Gaza crisis, dubbing Moon’s stopover in the Strip insufficient. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said on Tuesday, in an exclusive statement to the PIC, though on-the-spot visits are crucial to assess the actual state of affairs in the Gaza Strip, these are nonetheless “not enough” and require to eventually culminate in the implementation of practical measures.
“Moon saw with his own eyes the notorious Israeli massacre in Rafah city,” Abu Zuhri declared, calling on Moon to atone for his “mistakes” and pro-Israel positions by bringing his double standards and two-faced stances to a standstill.
Hamas’s statement came after Ban Ki-moon arrived in Gaza on Tuesday, for a visit that has been one of its kind since 2012, to check up the extent of damage wrought on the blockaded Gaza Strip by the notorious Israeli 51-day offensive, which took away the lives of at least 2100 Palestinians and left some 11,000 wounded. An estimated 20,000 homes were heavily damaged or destroyed in the process.
As he was driven through the ruins of Gaza city, Moon told reporters that the devastation he had seen was far worse than that caused in the previous Gaza conflict of winter 2008-2009
"I am here with a heavy heart," Moon told a news conference attended by deputy PM Ziad Abu Amr. "The destruction which I have seen coming here is beyond description," he added, calling for an immediate lifting of the Gaza blockade.
“I’d like to take this opportunity to express my deepest condolences to the people who lost their loved ones,” he said.
"We stand by you, the international community supports your government's efforts to assume the security and governance responsibility in Gaza," Moon said of the unity cabinet, adding: “Today’s meeting with ministers of the consensus government gives me a feeling that there is one single Palestine.”
For his part, deputy PM Ziad Abu Amr hailed Moon and the UN for having stood by the Palestinians and provided shelters for hundreds of homeless families.
Talks with Ban Ki-Moon on the performance of the unity government, Gaza employees, the siege, and the reconstruction process have been underway, Amr further revealed, declaring: “Security and stability in Palestine and the entire region can only see the day with the end of the Israeli occupation.”
“Moon saw with his own eyes the notorious Israeli massacre in Rafah city,” Abu Zuhri declared, calling on Moon to atone for his “mistakes” and pro-Israel positions by bringing his double standards and two-faced stances to a standstill.
Hamas’s statement came after Ban Ki-moon arrived in Gaza on Tuesday, for a visit that has been one of its kind since 2012, to check up the extent of damage wrought on the blockaded Gaza Strip by the notorious Israeli 51-day offensive, which took away the lives of at least 2100 Palestinians and left some 11,000 wounded. An estimated 20,000 homes were heavily damaged or destroyed in the process.
As he was driven through the ruins of Gaza city, Moon told reporters that the devastation he had seen was far worse than that caused in the previous Gaza conflict of winter 2008-2009
"I am here with a heavy heart," Moon told a news conference attended by deputy PM Ziad Abu Amr. "The destruction which I have seen coming here is beyond description," he added, calling for an immediate lifting of the Gaza blockade.
“I’d like to take this opportunity to express my deepest condolences to the people who lost their loved ones,” he said.
"We stand by you, the international community supports your government's efforts to assume the security and governance responsibility in Gaza," Moon said of the unity cabinet, adding: “Today’s meeting with ministers of the consensus government gives me a feeling that there is one single Palestine.”
For his part, deputy PM Ziad Abu Amr hailed Moon and the UN for having stood by the Palestinians and provided shelters for hundreds of homeless families.
Talks with Ban Ki-Moon on the performance of the unity government, Gaza employees, the siege, and the reconstruction process have been underway, Amr further revealed, declaring: “Security and stability in Palestine and the entire region can only see the day with the end of the Israeli occupation.”
9 oct 2014
[Prefatory Note: the post below is a somewhat revised version of a text published by The Nation, and to be found at the following link. I should also point out that in these proceedings in Brussels under the auspices of the Russell Tribunal I served as a member of the jury]
In a special session of the Russell Tribunal held in Brussels on September 24th, Israel’s military operation Protective Edge was critically scrutinized from the perspective of international law, including the core allegation of genocide. The process featured a series of testimonies by legal and weapons experts, health workers, journalists and others most of whom had experienced the 50 days of military assault.
A jury composed of prominent individuals from around the world, known for their moral engagement with issues of the day that concerned their societies, and also the wellbeing of humanity, assessed the evidence with the help of an expert legal team of volunteers that helped with the preparation of the findings and analysis for consideration by the jury, which deliberated and debated all relevant issues of fact and law, above all the question of how to respond to the charge of genocide.
It should be acknowledged that this undertaking was never intended to be a neutral inquiry without any predispositions. It was brought into being because of the enormity of the devastation caused by Protective Edge and the spectacle of horror associated with deploying a high technology weaponry to attack a vulnerable civilian population of Gaza locked into the combat zone that left no place to hide. It also responded to the failures of the international community to do more to stop the carnage, and condemn Israel’s disproportionate uses of force against this essentially helpless and beleaguered civilian population. Israel’s contested military operations targeted many legally forbidden targets, including UN buildings used as shelters, residential neighborhoods, hospitals and clinics, and mosques. In defense of these tactics, Israel claimed that rockets and ammunition were stored in these buildings and that Hamas rocket launchers were deliberately placed in the structures that had been singled out for attack. The evidence presented did not confirm these Israeli claims.
Although the Russell Tribunal proceeded from the presumed sense that Israel was responsible for severe wrongdoing, it made every effort to be scrupulous in the presentation of evidence and the interpretation of applicable international law, and relied on testimony from individuals with established reputations as persons of integrity and conscience. Among the highlights of the testimony were a report on damage to hospitals and clinics given by Dr. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor serving in a Gaza hospital during the attacks, Mohammed Omer, a widely respected journalist who daily reported from the combat zone, Max Blumenthal, the prize winning journalist who was in Gaza throughout Protective Edge and analyzed for the jury the overall political design that appeared to explain the civilian targeting patterns, and David Sheen, who reported in agonizing detail on the racist hatred exhibited by prominent Israelis during the period of combat, widely echoed by Israelis in the social media, and never repudiated by the leadership or public in Tel Aviv.
The jury had little difficulty concluding that the pattern of attack, as well as the targeting, amounted to a series of war crimes that were aggravated by the commission of crimes against humanity, most centrally the imposition of a multi-faceted regime of collective punishment upon the entire civilian population of Gaza in flagrant and sustained violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. A further notable legal finding was the rejection of the central Israel claim of acting in self-defense against rocket attacks directed at Israel.
There were several reasons given for reaching this conclusion: the claim of self-defense does not exist in relation to resistance mounted by an occupied people, and Gaza from the perspective of international law remains occupied due to Israeli persisting effective control despite Israel’s purported disengagement in 2005 (more properly characterized as a military redployment); the rockets fired from Gaza were partly at least in response to prior Israeli unlawful provocations, including the mass detention of several hundred persons loosely associated with Hamas in the West Bank and incitement to violence against Palestinians as revenge for the murder of the three kidnapped Israeli settler children; and finally, the minimal damage done by the rockets, seven civilian deaths over the entire period, is too small a security threat to qualify as “an armed attack” as is required by the UN Charter to uphold a claim of self-defense. At the same time, despite these mitigating factors, the jury did not doubt the unlawfulness of firing of numerous rockets into Israel that were incapable of distinguishing between military and civilian targets. This form of unlawful resistance was attributed to both Hamas and independent Palestinian militias operating within the Gaza Strip.
A focus of concern in the jury deliberations before and after the proceedings themselves was how to address the allegation of ‘genocide,’ which has been described as ‘the crimes of crimes.’ The jury was sensitive to the differences between the journalistic and political uses of the word ‘genocide’ to describe various forms of collective violence directed at ethnic and religious minorities, and the more demanding legal definition of genocide that requires compelling and unambiguous evidence of a specific ‘intent to destroy’.
The testimony made this issue complex and sensitive. It produced a consensus on the jury that the evidence of genocide was sufficient to make it appropriate and responsible to give careful consideration as to whether the crime of genocide had actually been committed by Israel in the course of carrying out Protective Edge. This was itself an acknowledgement that there was a genocidal atmosphere in Israel in which high officials made statements supporting the destruction, elimination, and subjugation of Gazans as a people, and such inflammatory assertions were at no time repudiated by the Netanyahu leadership or subject to criminal investigation, let alone any legal proceedings. Furthermore, the sustained bombardment of Gaza under circumstances where the population had no opportunity to leave or to seek sanctuary within the Gaza Strip lent further credibility to the charge of genocide. The fact that Protective Edge was the third large-scale, sustained military assault on this unlawfully blockaded, impoverished, and endangered population, also formed part of the larger genocidal context.
Further in the background, yet perhaps most relevant consideration of all, Israel failed to exhaust diplomatic remedies before its recourse to force, as required by international law and the UN Charter. Israel had the option of lifting the blockade and exploring the prospects for long-term arrangements for peaceful co-existence that Hamas had proposed numerous times in recent years. Such initiatives were spurned by Israel on the ground that it would not
deal with a terrorist organization.
Despite the incriminating weight of these factors, there were legal doubts as to the crime of genocide. The political and military leaders of Israel never explicitly endorsed the pursuit of genocidal goals, and purported to seek a ceasefire during the military campaign. There was absent a clear official expression of intent to commit genocide as distinct from the intensification of the regime of collective punishment that was convincingly documented. The presence of genocidal behavior and language even if used in government circles is not by itself sufficient to conclude that Protective Edge, despite its scale and fury, amounted to the commission of the crime of genocide.
What the jury did agree upon, however, was that Israeli citizens, including officials, appear to have been guilty in several instances of the separate crime of Incitement to Genocide that is specified in Article 3(c) of the Genocide Convention. It also agreed that the additional duty of Israel and others, especially the United States and Europe, to act to prevent genocide was definitely engaged by Israeli behavior. In this regard the Tribunal is sending an urgent message of warning to Israel and an appeal to the UN and the international community to uphold the Genocide Convention, and act to prevent any further behavior by Israel that would cross the line, and satisfy the difficult burden of proof that must be met if the conclusion is to be reached that the crime of genocide is being committed. At some point, the accumulation of genocidal acts will be reasonably understood as satisfying the high evidentiary bar that must be reached so as to conclude that Israel had committed genocide.
Many will react to this assessment of Protective Edge as lacking legal authority and dismiss the finding of the jury as merely recording the predictable views of a biased ‘kangaroo court.’ Such allegations have been directed at the Russell Tribunal ever since its establishment in the mid-1960s by the great English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, in the midst of the Vietnam War. These first sessions of the Russell Tribunal similarly assessed charges of war crimes associated with U.S. tactics in Vietnam, and in Russell’s words, represented a stand of citizens of conscience ‘against the crime of silence.’ This latest venture of the tribunal has a similar mission in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza, although less against silence than the crime of indifference.
It is my view that such tribunals, created almost always in exceptional circumstances of defiance of the most elemental constraints of international law, make crucial contributions to public awareness in situations of moral and legal outrage where geopolitical realities preclude established institutional procedures such as recourse to the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council and General Assembly. That is, these kind of self-constituted tribunals only come into being when two conditions exist: first, a circumstance of extreme and sustained violation of fundamental norms of morality and international law and secondly, a political setting in which governmental procedures and UN procedures are inoperative.
When the interests of the West are at stake, as in the Ukraine, there is no need to activate unofficial international law initiatives through the agency of civil society. However in circumstances involving Israel and Palestine, with the United States Government and most of Western Europe standing fully behind whatever Israel chooses to do, the need for a legal and moral accounting is particularly compelling even if the prospects for accountability are virtually nil. The long suffering people of Gaza have endured three criminal assaults in the past six years, and it has left virtually the whole of the population, especially young children, traumatized by the experience of such sustained military operations.
It should be acknowledged that the UN Human Rights Council has appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of war crimes associated with Protective Edge, but its report is not due for several months, Israel has indicated its unwillingness to cooperate with this official UN initiative, and it is almost certain that any findings of criminality and related recommendations will not be implemented due to the exercise of a geopolitical veto by the United States, and perhaps, other members of the Security Council. In view of these circumstances, the argument for convening the Russell Tribunal remains strong, especially if one recalls the fate of the Goldstone Report prepared in analogous conditions after the 2008-09 Israeli attacks on Gaza known as Operation Cast Lead.
The Russell Tribunal is filling a normative vacuum in the world. It does not pretend to be a court. In fact, among its recommendations is a call on the Palestinian Authority to join the International Criminal Court, and present Palestinian grievances to the authorities in The Hague for their investigation and possible indictments. Even then the realities of the world are such that prosecution will be impossible as Israel is not a party to the treaty establishing the ICC and would certainly refuse to honor any arrest warrants issued in The Hague, and no trial could be held without the physical presence of those accused. The value of an ICC proceeding would be symbolic and psychological, which in a legitimacy war would amount to a major ‘battlefield’ victory. It is notable that Hamas has joined in urging recourse to the ICC despite facing the distinct possibility that allegations against its launch of rockets would also be investigated and its officials indicted for its alleged war crimes.
As with the Nuremberg Judgment that documented the criminality of the Nazi experience, the process was flawed, especially by the exclusion of any consideration of the crimes committed by the victors in World War II, the Russell Tribunal can be criticized as one-sided in its undertaking. At the same time it seems virtually certain that on balance this assessment of Israel’s behavior toward the people of Gaza will be viewed as supportive of the long struggle to make the rule of law applicable to the strong as well as the weak. It is also reflective in the disparity of responsibility for the harm done by the two sides.
I recall some illuminating words of Edward Said uttered in the course of an interview with Bruce Robbins, published in Social Text (1998): “The major task of the American or the Palestinian or the Israeli intellectual of the left is to reveal the disparity between the so-called two sides, which appear to be rhetorically and ideologically to be in perfect balance, but are not in fact. To reveal that there is an oppressed and an oppressor, a victim and a victimizer, and unless we recognize that, we’re nowhere.”
In a special session of the Russell Tribunal held in Brussels on September 24th, Israel’s military operation Protective Edge was critically scrutinized from the perspective of international law, including the core allegation of genocide. The process featured a series of testimonies by legal and weapons experts, health workers, journalists and others most of whom had experienced the 50 days of military assault.
A jury composed of prominent individuals from around the world, known for their moral engagement with issues of the day that concerned their societies, and also the wellbeing of humanity, assessed the evidence with the help of an expert legal team of volunteers that helped with the preparation of the findings and analysis for consideration by the jury, which deliberated and debated all relevant issues of fact and law, above all the question of how to respond to the charge of genocide.
It should be acknowledged that this undertaking was never intended to be a neutral inquiry without any predispositions. It was brought into being because of the enormity of the devastation caused by Protective Edge and the spectacle of horror associated with deploying a high technology weaponry to attack a vulnerable civilian population of Gaza locked into the combat zone that left no place to hide. It also responded to the failures of the international community to do more to stop the carnage, and condemn Israel’s disproportionate uses of force against this essentially helpless and beleaguered civilian population. Israel’s contested military operations targeted many legally forbidden targets, including UN buildings used as shelters, residential neighborhoods, hospitals and clinics, and mosques. In defense of these tactics, Israel claimed that rockets and ammunition were stored in these buildings and that Hamas rocket launchers were deliberately placed in the structures that had been singled out for attack. The evidence presented did not confirm these Israeli claims.
Although the Russell Tribunal proceeded from the presumed sense that Israel was responsible for severe wrongdoing, it made every effort to be scrupulous in the presentation of evidence and the interpretation of applicable international law, and relied on testimony from individuals with established reputations as persons of integrity and conscience. Among the highlights of the testimony were a report on damage to hospitals and clinics given by Dr. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor serving in a Gaza hospital during the attacks, Mohammed Omer, a widely respected journalist who daily reported from the combat zone, Max Blumenthal, the prize winning journalist who was in Gaza throughout Protective Edge and analyzed for the jury the overall political design that appeared to explain the civilian targeting patterns, and David Sheen, who reported in agonizing detail on the racist hatred exhibited by prominent Israelis during the period of combat, widely echoed by Israelis in the social media, and never repudiated by the leadership or public in Tel Aviv.
The jury had little difficulty concluding that the pattern of attack, as well as the targeting, amounted to a series of war crimes that were aggravated by the commission of crimes against humanity, most centrally the imposition of a multi-faceted regime of collective punishment upon the entire civilian population of Gaza in flagrant and sustained violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. A further notable legal finding was the rejection of the central Israel claim of acting in self-defense against rocket attacks directed at Israel.
There were several reasons given for reaching this conclusion: the claim of self-defense does not exist in relation to resistance mounted by an occupied people, and Gaza from the perspective of international law remains occupied due to Israeli persisting effective control despite Israel’s purported disengagement in 2005 (more properly characterized as a military redployment); the rockets fired from Gaza were partly at least in response to prior Israeli unlawful provocations, including the mass detention of several hundred persons loosely associated with Hamas in the West Bank and incitement to violence against Palestinians as revenge for the murder of the three kidnapped Israeli settler children; and finally, the minimal damage done by the rockets, seven civilian deaths over the entire period, is too small a security threat to qualify as “an armed attack” as is required by the UN Charter to uphold a claim of self-defense. At the same time, despite these mitigating factors, the jury did not doubt the unlawfulness of firing of numerous rockets into Israel that were incapable of distinguishing between military and civilian targets. This form of unlawful resistance was attributed to both Hamas and independent Palestinian militias operating within the Gaza Strip.
A focus of concern in the jury deliberations before and after the proceedings themselves was how to address the allegation of ‘genocide,’ which has been described as ‘the crimes of crimes.’ The jury was sensitive to the differences between the journalistic and political uses of the word ‘genocide’ to describe various forms of collective violence directed at ethnic and religious minorities, and the more demanding legal definition of genocide that requires compelling and unambiguous evidence of a specific ‘intent to destroy’.
The testimony made this issue complex and sensitive. It produced a consensus on the jury that the evidence of genocide was sufficient to make it appropriate and responsible to give careful consideration as to whether the crime of genocide had actually been committed by Israel in the course of carrying out Protective Edge. This was itself an acknowledgement that there was a genocidal atmosphere in Israel in which high officials made statements supporting the destruction, elimination, and subjugation of Gazans as a people, and such inflammatory assertions were at no time repudiated by the Netanyahu leadership or subject to criminal investigation, let alone any legal proceedings. Furthermore, the sustained bombardment of Gaza under circumstances where the population had no opportunity to leave or to seek sanctuary within the Gaza Strip lent further credibility to the charge of genocide. The fact that Protective Edge was the third large-scale, sustained military assault on this unlawfully blockaded, impoverished, and endangered population, also formed part of the larger genocidal context.
Further in the background, yet perhaps most relevant consideration of all, Israel failed to exhaust diplomatic remedies before its recourse to force, as required by international law and the UN Charter. Israel had the option of lifting the blockade and exploring the prospects for long-term arrangements for peaceful co-existence that Hamas had proposed numerous times in recent years. Such initiatives were spurned by Israel on the ground that it would not
deal with a terrorist organization.
Despite the incriminating weight of these factors, there were legal doubts as to the crime of genocide. The political and military leaders of Israel never explicitly endorsed the pursuit of genocidal goals, and purported to seek a ceasefire during the military campaign. There was absent a clear official expression of intent to commit genocide as distinct from the intensification of the regime of collective punishment that was convincingly documented. The presence of genocidal behavior and language even if used in government circles is not by itself sufficient to conclude that Protective Edge, despite its scale and fury, amounted to the commission of the crime of genocide.
What the jury did agree upon, however, was that Israeli citizens, including officials, appear to have been guilty in several instances of the separate crime of Incitement to Genocide that is specified in Article 3(c) of the Genocide Convention. It also agreed that the additional duty of Israel and others, especially the United States and Europe, to act to prevent genocide was definitely engaged by Israeli behavior. In this regard the Tribunal is sending an urgent message of warning to Israel and an appeal to the UN and the international community to uphold the Genocide Convention, and act to prevent any further behavior by Israel that would cross the line, and satisfy the difficult burden of proof that must be met if the conclusion is to be reached that the crime of genocide is being committed. At some point, the accumulation of genocidal acts will be reasonably understood as satisfying the high evidentiary bar that must be reached so as to conclude that Israel had committed genocide.
Many will react to this assessment of Protective Edge as lacking legal authority and dismiss the finding of the jury as merely recording the predictable views of a biased ‘kangaroo court.’ Such allegations have been directed at the Russell Tribunal ever since its establishment in the mid-1960s by the great English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, in the midst of the Vietnam War. These first sessions of the Russell Tribunal similarly assessed charges of war crimes associated with U.S. tactics in Vietnam, and in Russell’s words, represented a stand of citizens of conscience ‘against the crime of silence.’ This latest venture of the tribunal has a similar mission in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza, although less against silence than the crime of indifference.
It is my view that such tribunals, created almost always in exceptional circumstances of defiance of the most elemental constraints of international law, make crucial contributions to public awareness in situations of moral and legal outrage where geopolitical realities preclude established institutional procedures such as recourse to the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council and General Assembly. That is, these kind of self-constituted tribunals only come into being when two conditions exist: first, a circumstance of extreme and sustained violation of fundamental norms of morality and international law and secondly, a political setting in which governmental procedures and UN procedures are inoperative.
When the interests of the West are at stake, as in the Ukraine, there is no need to activate unofficial international law initiatives through the agency of civil society. However in circumstances involving Israel and Palestine, with the United States Government and most of Western Europe standing fully behind whatever Israel chooses to do, the need for a legal and moral accounting is particularly compelling even if the prospects for accountability are virtually nil. The long suffering people of Gaza have endured three criminal assaults in the past six years, and it has left virtually the whole of the population, especially young children, traumatized by the experience of such sustained military operations.
It should be acknowledged that the UN Human Rights Council has appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of war crimes associated with Protective Edge, but its report is not due for several months, Israel has indicated its unwillingness to cooperate with this official UN initiative, and it is almost certain that any findings of criminality and related recommendations will not be implemented due to the exercise of a geopolitical veto by the United States, and perhaps, other members of the Security Council. In view of these circumstances, the argument for convening the Russell Tribunal remains strong, especially if one recalls the fate of the Goldstone Report prepared in analogous conditions after the 2008-09 Israeli attacks on Gaza known as Operation Cast Lead.
The Russell Tribunal is filling a normative vacuum in the world. It does not pretend to be a court. In fact, among its recommendations is a call on the Palestinian Authority to join the International Criminal Court, and present Palestinian grievances to the authorities in The Hague for their investigation and possible indictments. Even then the realities of the world are such that prosecution will be impossible as Israel is not a party to the treaty establishing the ICC and would certainly refuse to honor any arrest warrants issued in The Hague, and no trial could be held without the physical presence of those accused. The value of an ICC proceeding would be symbolic and psychological, which in a legitimacy war would amount to a major ‘battlefield’ victory. It is notable that Hamas has joined in urging recourse to the ICC despite facing the distinct possibility that allegations against its launch of rockets would also be investigated and its officials indicted for its alleged war crimes.
As with the Nuremberg Judgment that documented the criminality of the Nazi experience, the process was flawed, especially by the exclusion of any consideration of the crimes committed by the victors in World War II, the Russell Tribunal can be criticized as one-sided in its undertaking. At the same time it seems virtually certain that on balance this assessment of Israel’s behavior toward the people of Gaza will be viewed as supportive of the long struggle to make the rule of law applicable to the strong as well as the weak. It is also reflective in the disparity of responsibility for the harm done by the two sides.
I recall some illuminating words of Edward Said uttered in the course of an interview with Bruce Robbins, published in Social Text (1998): “The major task of the American or the Palestinian or the Israeli intellectual of the left is to reveal the disparity between the so-called two sides, which appear to be rhetorically and ideologically to be in perfect balance, but are not in fact. To reveal that there is an oppressed and an oppressor, a victim and a victimizer, and unless we recognize that, we’re nowhere.”
3 oct 2014
On the record quote from UNRWA Spokesman, Chris Gunness...
With 241,000 children back in UNRWA schools to continue their education, UNRWA now has a more accurate picture of the impact of the 50-day war on students and their families. We can confirm that 138 UNRWA students were killed since 8 July.
An additional 814 were injured and 560 have become orphans as a result of the recent hostilities. Family life for so many has been devastated. Behind each of these statistics is a heart-breaking, individual story, a dignity and a destiny that must be respected, even in death. Palestinian children are not statistics.
UNRWA remains committed to dealing with the psychological scars of the conflict, particularly among children. During the past week, the Agency’s Community Mental Health Programme implemented more training for UNRWA teachers on providing classroom-based psychosocial interventions. The training at schools included stress management skills for teachers, life skills education for elementary students, and structured recreational activities for preparatory students.
Meanwhile, UNRWA’s assessment of refugee homes continued over the past week and we have revised upwards our initial assessment of damage. According to estimates based on preliminary information, as many as 80,000 refugee homes were damaged or destroyed during the fifty days of hostilities, a much higher figure than the total number of 60,000 refugees and non-refugees – estimated earlier. We estimate that at least 20,000 of these are uninhabitable.
The majority of Gaza’s 110,000 homeless people are children. They are being denied the space which children the world over take for granted, a place where their humanity is nurtured and developed. UNRWA continues to advocate for the rapid rebuilding of Gaza, a lifting of the blockade and the full restoration of rights, including the rights of children. We also continue to call for accountability for violations of international law by all parties.
Background Information:
According to the overall UN figure, 505 Palestinian children are confirmed killed during the 50 day war. The cumulative death toll among Palestinians is at least 2,180, including 260 women. It is reported that the cumulative Israeli fatality toll is 71, of whom 66 were soldiers and one civilian fatality was a child
Christopher Gunness | Spokesperson, Director of Advocacy and Strategic Communications.
With 241,000 children back in UNRWA schools to continue their education, UNRWA now has a more accurate picture of the impact of the 50-day war on students and their families. We can confirm that 138 UNRWA students were killed since 8 July.
An additional 814 were injured and 560 have become orphans as a result of the recent hostilities. Family life for so many has been devastated. Behind each of these statistics is a heart-breaking, individual story, a dignity and a destiny that must be respected, even in death. Palestinian children are not statistics.
UNRWA remains committed to dealing with the psychological scars of the conflict, particularly among children. During the past week, the Agency’s Community Mental Health Programme implemented more training for UNRWA teachers on providing classroom-based psychosocial interventions. The training at schools included stress management skills for teachers, life skills education for elementary students, and structured recreational activities for preparatory students.
Meanwhile, UNRWA’s assessment of refugee homes continued over the past week and we have revised upwards our initial assessment of damage. According to estimates based on preliminary information, as many as 80,000 refugee homes were damaged or destroyed during the fifty days of hostilities, a much higher figure than the total number of 60,000 refugees and non-refugees – estimated earlier. We estimate that at least 20,000 of these are uninhabitable.
The majority of Gaza’s 110,000 homeless people are children. They are being denied the space which children the world over take for granted, a place where their humanity is nurtured and developed. UNRWA continues to advocate for the rapid rebuilding of Gaza, a lifting of the blockade and the full restoration of rights, including the rights of children. We also continue to call for accountability for violations of international law by all parties.
Background Information:
According to the overall UN figure, 505 Palestinian children are confirmed killed during the 50 day war. The cumulative death toll among Palestinians is at least 2,180, including 260 women. It is reported that the cumulative Israeli fatality toll is 71, of whom 66 were soldiers and one civilian fatality was a child
Christopher Gunness | Spokesperson, Director of Advocacy and Strategic Communications.
2 oct 2014
An Israeli military officer recently stated that "the upcoming war on Gaza will be greater, and will down more victims," Israeli sources say.
According to the PNN, Eyal Eizenberg, Israeli Occupation Army Home Front Command, said during a lecture at the Institute for National Security Studies (Tel Aviv University), that "the recent assault on Gaza is not at all similar to the upcoming war that the Israeli army is preparing for."
He added that "the future war will require stronger abilities and more sacrifices to pay a bigger price."
Finally, he stated that "the main lesson we got from the Gaza assault was represented in the necessity of readiness of the home front, and the ability to provide services to the people in cases of emergency."
Al Ray reports that a recent Israeli public opinion poll showed that 74% of Israelis now prefer political settlement with Palestinians rather than a military one.
Over 2, 000 people were killed in the latest Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, most of whom were civilians, and nearly 600 of them children. Some 11,000 were seriously inured, with many scarred and even maimed for life.
An independently sourced photo collage of the devastation is linked here. (Content is extremely graphic in nature.)
According to the PNN, Eyal Eizenberg, Israeli Occupation Army Home Front Command, said during a lecture at the Institute for National Security Studies (Tel Aviv University), that "the recent assault on Gaza is not at all similar to the upcoming war that the Israeli army is preparing for."
He added that "the future war will require stronger abilities and more sacrifices to pay a bigger price."
Finally, he stated that "the main lesson we got from the Gaza assault was represented in the necessity of readiness of the home front, and the ability to provide services to the people in cases of emergency."
Al Ray reports that a recent Israeli public opinion poll showed that 74% of Israelis now prefer political settlement with Palestinians rather than a military one.
Over 2, 000 people were killed in the latest Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, most of whom were civilians, and nearly 600 of them children. Some 11,000 were seriously inured, with many scarred and even maimed for life.
An independently sourced photo collage of the devastation is linked here. (Content is extremely graphic in nature.)
The Arab League reiterated its support to the upcoming Palestinian bid at the United Nations Security Council, demanding ending the Israeli occupation, and called on the United States to refrain from using its veto power to topple the move.
Head of the Palestine and Occupied Arab Territories Committee at the Arab League Mohammad Sbeih stated, Wednesday, that Palestine would be heading to the Security Council with full Arab support, based on a previous resolution approved by the Arab League.
Sbeih added that the Palestinian bid is still being discussed and modified before it is presented in its final stage.
Commenting on the US criticism to the recent speech of President Abbas at the UN, Sbeih said the United States is criticizing, and allowing Israeli extremists to slam and attack Abbas, but is not suggesting any positive proposals or initiatives.
“We will see the US actions during the vote,” he said. “America has friends and interests in the Middle East; it should act as a fair mediator, with a clear policy."
He also stated that Arab countries are asking the United States not to use its veto power at the Security Council, especially since Washington has used its veto 43 times against resolutions that could have provided protection and liberation to the Palestinians.
Sbeih further stated that the United States should take a positive stance that every country in the region, including the Israel, would adhere to, a stance which respects International Laws, regulations, and all related resolutions.
“We will just have to wait and see," he added. “We will not declare positions and stances before the vote is concluded.”
Head of the Palestine and Occupied Arab Territories Committee at the Arab League Mohammad Sbeih stated, Wednesday, that Palestine would be heading to the Security Council with full Arab support, based on a previous resolution approved by the Arab League.
Sbeih added that the Palestinian bid is still being discussed and modified before it is presented in its final stage.
Commenting on the US criticism to the recent speech of President Abbas at the UN, Sbeih said the United States is criticizing, and allowing Israeli extremists to slam and attack Abbas, but is not suggesting any positive proposals or initiatives.
“We will see the US actions during the vote,” he said. “America has friends and interests in the Middle East; it should act as a fair mediator, with a clear policy."
He also stated that Arab countries are asking the United States not to use its veto power at the Security Council, especially since Washington has used its veto 43 times against resolutions that could have provided protection and liberation to the Palestinians.
Sbeih further stated that the United States should take a positive stance that every country in the region, including the Israel, would adhere to, a stance which respects International Laws, regulations, and all related resolutions.
“We will just have to wait and see," he added. “We will not declare positions and stances before the vote is concluded.”
1 oct 2014
“Palestinians are not only fighting for Palestine but for the very ethics we would die for,” the Tunisian President Mohamed Moncef El-Marzouki said on Tuesday, vowing that Tunisia shall spare no single effort in serving the Palestinian cause in the very best way possible.
Addressing a large audience at the opening of the “International Conference on the Political and Legal Processes of the Palestinian Cause in Light of the Israeli Aggression” held under his partonage, El-Marzouki outlined three orientations to be inevitably adopted by Tunisia: the first is to react according to Palestinians’ options and decisions; second to back up the Palestinian national unity; and third to assist the people with all possible means.
“We opt for Palestinians’ decisions. We have, and will always, reject the deadlocked policies adopted by some Arab regimes, aiming at spearheading Palestinians,” the president declared. “No regime shall ever dare set itself as the guarding of this people. They are the only ones who decide how their fate should look like. We only go along their lines.”
“Tunisia is a peaceful country that does not seek to sow discord between peoples,” El-Marzouki further confirmed, noting that “Tunisia has always advocated inter-Palestinian reconciliation and unity of Palestinians.”
He called on the International Criminal Court to expedite the impeachment of the recent genocides committed by Israel against the unarmed Palestinian people.
El-Marzouki said he met PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in New York a few days ago and was told that Palestine’s application for membership in the Rome Stature is coming out soon.
The president hailed Palestinians and expressed deep gratitude for the “stone-throwing children” who have taught Tunisians the true meaning of activism, resistance and pride in the face of the world’s powers of darkness.
Addressing a large audience at the opening of the “International Conference on the Political and Legal Processes of the Palestinian Cause in Light of the Israeli Aggression” held under his partonage, El-Marzouki outlined three orientations to be inevitably adopted by Tunisia: the first is to react according to Palestinians’ options and decisions; second to back up the Palestinian national unity; and third to assist the people with all possible means.
“We opt for Palestinians’ decisions. We have, and will always, reject the deadlocked policies adopted by some Arab regimes, aiming at spearheading Palestinians,” the president declared. “No regime shall ever dare set itself as the guarding of this people. They are the only ones who decide how their fate should look like. We only go along their lines.”
“Tunisia is a peaceful country that does not seek to sow discord between peoples,” El-Marzouki further confirmed, noting that “Tunisia has always advocated inter-Palestinian reconciliation and unity of Palestinians.”
He called on the International Criminal Court to expedite the impeachment of the recent genocides committed by Israel against the unarmed Palestinian people.
El-Marzouki said he met PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in New York a few days ago and was told that Palestine’s application for membership in the Rome Stature is coming out soon.
The president hailed Palestinians and expressed deep gratitude for the “stone-throwing children” who have taught Tunisians the true meaning of activism, resistance and pride in the face of the world’s powers of darkness.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pressed Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, during a meeting held at the UN headquarters in New York on Tuesday, to lift the Gaza siege as the only way out of the potential outburst of fighting in Gaza anew. According to a statement issued by the Secretary General’s Spokesperson, Moon received Netanyahu in a behind-closed-doors meeting, during which he stressed the need to “lift the enforced Gaza blockade and meet Israel’s legitimate security concerns.”
Moon voiced deep concern at continued Israeli settlement activity at the expense of Palestinians’ occupied territories and reiterated that a political horizon must be restored without further procrastination.
A return to the status quo is not an option, UN Secretary General further stated as he stressed the urgent need to address the underlying causes of the crisis.
He welcomed the tripartite agreement between the government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations on the secure entry of reconstruction materials into Gaza and hoped for its swift implementation.
UN Middle East Envoy, Robert Serry, announced in mid September that the PA, UN, and Israel had struck a deal on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, enabling the PA to take a leading role in the reconstruction process and the UN to monitor the construction materials.
Israel has tightened military air and sea grips on Gaza ever since Hamas swept Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 and won a landslide victory.
The siege had grown even tougher despite the fact that Hamas stepped down from Gaza government and made concessions to beef up the unity government formed in June.
The situation has remarkably gone downhill in the wake of the notorious 51-day Israeli offensive that rocked the blockaded enclave. At least 2159 Palestinians, mostly innocent children and women, were mass-murdered while 11,000 others sustained critical wounds in the process.
Moon voiced deep concern at continued Israeli settlement activity at the expense of Palestinians’ occupied territories and reiterated that a political horizon must be restored without further procrastination.
A return to the status quo is not an option, UN Secretary General further stated as he stressed the urgent need to address the underlying causes of the crisis.
He welcomed the tripartite agreement between the government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations on the secure entry of reconstruction materials into Gaza and hoped for its swift implementation.
UN Middle East Envoy, Robert Serry, announced in mid September that the PA, UN, and Israel had struck a deal on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, enabling the PA to take a leading role in the reconstruction process and the UN to monitor the construction materials.
Israel has tightened military air and sea grips on Gaza ever since Hamas swept Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 and won a landslide victory.
The siege had grown even tougher despite the fact that Hamas stepped down from Gaza government and made concessions to beef up the unity government formed in June.
The situation has remarkably gone downhill in the wake of the notorious 51-day Israeli offensive that rocked the blockaded enclave. At least 2159 Palestinians, mostly innocent children and women, were mass-murdered while 11,000 others sustained critical wounds in the process.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority would go ahead with its plan to join the International Criminal Court, should the Palestinian UN Security Council bid for setting a time frame for ending the Israeli occupation fail, or be vetoed by the United States.
Abbas made his statement during a meeting with reporters and writers at his Ramallah office, in the central West Bank.
“We have already started the preparations for filing the application at the Security Council,” Abbas said. “We are seeking our right to an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, we want a clear timetable, a year, two or three, to end the occupation, but we want the period clearly defined.”
Abbas further said that the Palestinian Authority wants to resume direct peace talks with Tel Aviv, but this cannot happen before having a clear and internationally recognized agenda for setting the borders of the future state, and setting a clear time frame for peace talks.
He added that the P.A needs three weeks to present the proposal to the UN Security Council, and that the bid needs nine votes to pass, and affirmed that Palestinians realize the fact the United States will veto the resolution.
“Should the U.S. use its veto power, then we will file more applications to join international organizations and treaties,” Abbas added. “The first application will be to join the International Criminal Court.”
He also stated that a failure in the Security Council would lead the P.A to reexamine its relations with Tel Aviv, including the security coordination in the West Bank, adding that more Palestinian voices are demanding an end to this coordination.
“We will reconsider everything, in fact,” Abbas elaborated. “Thee are ties with Tel Aviv...”
However, the President said the P.A will not allow armed clashes with Israel, and stated “we will not allow the firing of even one bullet, we have a political front to battle; it is even more difficult and more important."
Abbas also said that the current relation with the White House is tense, and described the latest American statements regarding his speech at the UN last Friday as “funny."
“The situation is tense; it is not in our interest to cause more tension, “ he said. “But we also cannot back down now; we will head to the Security Council; the political confrontation will be fierce.”
Abbas made his statement during a meeting with reporters and writers at his Ramallah office, in the central West Bank.
“We have already started the preparations for filing the application at the Security Council,” Abbas said. “We are seeking our right to an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, we want a clear timetable, a year, two or three, to end the occupation, but we want the period clearly defined.”
Abbas further said that the Palestinian Authority wants to resume direct peace talks with Tel Aviv, but this cannot happen before having a clear and internationally recognized agenda for setting the borders of the future state, and setting a clear time frame for peace talks.
He added that the P.A needs three weeks to present the proposal to the UN Security Council, and that the bid needs nine votes to pass, and affirmed that Palestinians realize the fact the United States will veto the resolution.
“Should the U.S. use its veto power, then we will file more applications to join international organizations and treaties,” Abbas added. “The first application will be to join the International Criminal Court.”
He also stated that a failure in the Security Council would lead the P.A to reexamine its relations with Tel Aviv, including the security coordination in the West Bank, adding that more Palestinian voices are demanding an end to this coordination.
“We will reconsider everything, in fact,” Abbas elaborated. “Thee are ties with Tel Aviv...”
However, the President said the P.A will not allow armed clashes with Israel, and stated “we will not allow the firing of even one bullet, we have a political front to battle; it is even more difficult and more important."
Abbas also said that the current relation with the White House is tense, and described the latest American statements regarding his speech at the UN last Friday as “funny."
“The situation is tense; it is not in our interest to cause more tension, “ he said. “But we also cannot back down now; we will head to the Security Council; the political confrontation will be fierce.”
