15 mar 2016
On Monday, Palestine was awarded a full membership in the Permanent Court of Arbitration, after 57 countries votes in favor, 24 abstained and zero voted against.
The Palestinian application was filed to Holland on January 29, 2015, officially requesting membership with the International Court of Arbitration, but the United States led a strong opposition, and managed to get the court’s leadership to postpone the vote, until a special committee reviewed the application.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said it send a strong letter to its Dutch counterpart, demanding that the government of Holland, which houses the court at The Hague, to revoke his decision to suspend the application, and threatened to take the case to specialized international courts.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki also held a meeting with his Dutch counterpart, on the sidelines of the Human Rights Council sessions, and asked him to find a solution to the issue, and the later promised to help in resolving it.
On its part, the Palestinian Mission in Holland also held talks with various countries, members of the court, and managed to come up with a coordinated position, before asking for a date for discussing Palestine’s full membership.
The United States, Canada and Israel strongly opposed the move, and presented a number of proposals that were meant to obstruct the vote under various “justifications,” including the claim that membership with this court requires a full membership with the United Nations.
The majority of world countries rejected those claims, and affirmed the Palestinian right to become a member with the court.
In its statement, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said that countries around the world strongly supported a vote on the matter, despite the fact that it is the first time since this court was established, a country is recognized as a member by voting.
The Ministry added that most world countries wanted to overcome the Israeli, American and Canadian opposition by holding a vote on Palestine’s membership.
“The United States knew very well it would be among the tiny minority that stood against Palestine’s membership with the Court; it knew that the vote would not be in its favor,” al-Maliki said, “When the US failed in preventing the vote, it withdrew from the session, while some countries abstained citing procedural justifications.”
He added that Israel, Canada and the United States abstained from the vote, citing the same procedural justifications, yet, neither Canada nor Israel actually withdrew from the session while the United States did.
After the vote, Palestine’s Ambassador in Holland, Nabil Abu Zneid, assumed his position as the official representative of Palestine, and thanked all countries that stood for Palestine and its legitimate right to become a member.
The Palestinian application was filed to Holland on January 29, 2015, officially requesting membership with the International Court of Arbitration, but the United States led a strong opposition, and managed to get the court’s leadership to postpone the vote, until a special committee reviewed the application.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said it send a strong letter to its Dutch counterpart, demanding that the government of Holland, which houses the court at The Hague, to revoke his decision to suspend the application, and threatened to take the case to specialized international courts.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki also held a meeting with his Dutch counterpart, on the sidelines of the Human Rights Council sessions, and asked him to find a solution to the issue, and the later promised to help in resolving it.
On its part, the Palestinian Mission in Holland also held talks with various countries, members of the court, and managed to come up with a coordinated position, before asking for a date for discussing Palestine’s full membership.
The United States, Canada and Israel strongly opposed the move, and presented a number of proposals that were meant to obstruct the vote under various “justifications,” including the claim that membership with this court requires a full membership with the United Nations.
The majority of world countries rejected those claims, and affirmed the Palestinian right to become a member with the court.
In its statement, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said that countries around the world strongly supported a vote on the matter, despite the fact that it is the first time since this court was established, a country is recognized as a member by voting.
The Ministry added that most world countries wanted to overcome the Israeli, American and Canadian opposition by holding a vote on Palestine’s membership.
“The United States knew very well it would be among the tiny minority that stood against Palestine’s membership with the Court; it knew that the vote would not be in its favor,” al-Maliki said, “When the US failed in preventing the vote, it withdrew from the session, while some countries abstained citing procedural justifications.”
He added that Israel, Canada and the United States abstained from the vote, citing the same procedural justifications, yet, neither Canada nor Israel actually withdrew from the session while the United States did.
After the vote, Palestine’s Ambassador in Holland, Nabil Abu Zneid, assumed his position as the official representative of Palestine, and thanked all countries that stood for Palestine and its legitimate right to become a member.
4 mar 2016
Israeli authorities have denied a delegation of six Belgian MPs entry into the blockaded Gaza Strip to visit local NGOs, this week.
The delegation, which represents different political parties in Belgium, said in a statement, on Wednesday, that they had arranged the visit for the day before with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
They had hoped to meet with civil society organizations and take field tours across the beleaguered enclave at the request of the Belgian parliament.
After being denied, the MPs criticised the “illegal” Israel measure and said it contravened international conventions. They also suggested that Israel might be attempting “to hide something,” and said they had informed the Belgian government of “the unacceptable situation.”
“Israel has no right to act in such way which violates international conventions,” the MPs said in their statement.
Earlier this year, Belgium pledged €2.45 million ($2.6 million) to UNRWA “in support of the agency’s services for Palestine refugees in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
It adds, according to the PNN, to some $90 million Belgium has donated to the agency since 2007.
The delegation was lead by Gunel Grufenis of the Belgium Socialist party, and included Van Kwecenuorn, representative of the Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats party, Jean Marc Noly, representative of the Belgian Green party, David Clarnival, representative of the Reform Movement party, Brydia Frogovils, representative of Christian Democratic and Flemish party and Beit Dobren, representative of the New Flemish Alliance party.
The Palestinian MP and head of the popular committee against the Gaza siege, Jamal Khudari strongly condemned the Israeli ban. He described Israel’s decision as part of its siege on the Strip that deepens the suffering of Gaza people.
Khudari also called on the international community and the European parliaments to exert more pressures on Israel to end Gaza siege.
The delegation, which represents different political parties in Belgium, said in a statement, on Wednesday, that they had arranged the visit for the day before with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
They had hoped to meet with civil society organizations and take field tours across the beleaguered enclave at the request of the Belgian parliament.
After being denied, the MPs criticised the “illegal” Israel measure and said it contravened international conventions. They also suggested that Israel might be attempting “to hide something,” and said they had informed the Belgian government of “the unacceptable situation.”
“Israel has no right to act in such way which violates international conventions,” the MPs said in their statement.
Earlier this year, Belgium pledged €2.45 million ($2.6 million) to UNRWA “in support of the agency’s services for Palestine refugees in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
It adds, according to the PNN, to some $90 million Belgium has donated to the agency since 2007.
The delegation was lead by Gunel Grufenis of the Belgium Socialist party, and included Van Kwecenuorn, representative of the Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats party, Jean Marc Noly, representative of the Belgian Green party, David Clarnival, representative of the Reform Movement party, Brydia Frogovils, representative of Christian Democratic and Flemish party and Beit Dobren, representative of the New Flemish Alliance party.
The Palestinian MP and head of the popular committee against the Gaza siege, Jamal Khudari strongly condemned the Israeli ban. He described Israel’s decision as part of its siege on the Strip that deepens the suffering of Gaza people.
Khudari also called on the international community and the European parliaments to exert more pressures on Israel to end Gaza siege.
12 feb 2016
Four Palestinian human rights organizations delivered a communication pursuant to the International Criminal Court over Israeli war crimes in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014.
The organizations include Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, Al-Haq, Aldameer, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. In their statement, the organizations said that they provided evidence of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014 following the invocation of the controversial Hannibal Directive by the Israeli military forces.
Unlawful attacks against the Palestinian civilian population and their infrastructure and property ensued, killing 255 Palestinians, including 212 civilians. The Hannibal Directive – which is ostensibly intended to thwart the abduction of an abducted Israeli soldier – was invoked in Rafah following the reported capture of Israeli 2nd Lt. Hadar Goldin.
It transpired, however, that the soldier had died. Israel's attacks on Rafah continued until 4 August, despite the confirmation that the reportedly captured soldier had died in the late evening of 2 August, according to the statement.
During the four days in Rafah, the Israeli occupying forces unleashed intensive artillery, tank, and aerial attacks on the civilian population of Rafah. Inhabited houses were attacked without warning at night. Documentation provided by the submitting organizations further reveals that 119 of those killed died in their homes.
Two 1000lb bombs were dropped on a civilian building, killing 16 people in the nearby street. Civilians in the street were picked off by drones; alongside the dead, there was a proliferation of horrific injuries, including severed limbs. Attacks on ambulances, hospitals, and vehicles led to the evacuation of Rafah’s principal hospital.
An attack on an UNRWA school-turned-shelter for displaced people killed 14 people. Through their second communication, the submitting organizations seek to assist the Prosecutor in establishing that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that high-ranking Israeli military and civilian officials committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during Operation Protective Edge in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014.
The organizations include Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, Al-Haq, Aldameer, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. In their statement, the organizations said that they provided evidence of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014 following the invocation of the controversial Hannibal Directive by the Israeli military forces.
Unlawful attacks against the Palestinian civilian population and their infrastructure and property ensued, killing 255 Palestinians, including 212 civilians. The Hannibal Directive – which is ostensibly intended to thwart the abduction of an abducted Israeli soldier – was invoked in Rafah following the reported capture of Israeli 2nd Lt. Hadar Goldin.
It transpired, however, that the soldier had died. Israel's attacks on Rafah continued until 4 August, despite the confirmation that the reportedly captured soldier had died in the late evening of 2 August, according to the statement.
During the four days in Rafah, the Israeli occupying forces unleashed intensive artillery, tank, and aerial attacks on the civilian population of Rafah. Inhabited houses were attacked without warning at night. Documentation provided by the submitting organizations further reveals that 119 of those killed died in their homes.
Two 1000lb bombs were dropped on a civilian building, killing 16 people in the nearby street. Civilians in the street were picked off by drones; alongside the dead, there was a proliferation of horrific injuries, including severed limbs. Attacks on ambulances, hospitals, and vehicles led to the evacuation of Rafah’s principal hospital.
An attack on an UNRWA school-turned-shelter for displaced people killed 14 people. Through their second communication, the submitting organizations seek to assist the Prosecutor in establishing that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that high-ranking Israeli military and civilian officials committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during Operation Protective Edge in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014.
11 feb 2016
A delegation from the European parliament was blocked by Israeli authorities from entering Gaza on Tuesday, the EU said in a statement.
The delegation said, according to World Bulletin/Al Ray, that they were not given a reason for being barred from the blockaded enclave, where they were due to assess the damage caused by an Israeli military operation in 2014 as well as the progress of EU-funded reconstruction efforts.
"The systematic denial by Israel of access to Gaza to European Parliament delegations is unacceptable," said the head of the seven-member delegation, Irish MEP Martina Anderson. "This raises questions: what does the Israeli government aim to hide? We shall not give up on the Gazan people."
Anderson also said that the European parliament had not been given access to Gaza since 2011.
At least 2,200 Palestinians were killed by Operation Protective Edge in July 2014, which Israel's army claimed it launched to stop rocket fire into Israel from Gaza.
In January, Makarim Wibisono, the UN expert tasked with monitoring human rights in the occupied West Bank quit, complaining that he had never been given access to the territory.
The delegation said, according to World Bulletin/Al Ray, that they were not given a reason for being barred from the blockaded enclave, where they were due to assess the damage caused by an Israeli military operation in 2014 as well as the progress of EU-funded reconstruction efforts.
"The systematic denial by Israel of access to Gaza to European Parliament delegations is unacceptable," said the head of the seven-member delegation, Irish MEP Martina Anderson. "This raises questions: what does the Israeli government aim to hide? We shall not give up on the Gazan people."
Anderson also said that the European parliament had not been given access to Gaza since 2011.
At least 2,200 Palestinians were killed by Operation Protective Edge in July 2014, which Israel's army claimed it launched to stop rocket fire into Israel from Gaza.
In January, Makarim Wibisono, the UN expert tasked with monitoring human rights in the occupied West Bank quit, complaining that he had never been given access to the territory.
Yahia Lafi
Four Palestinian human rights organizations submitted, on Wednesday, a second communication to the International Criminal Court (ICC) over Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated in August of 2014.
According to a Al Mezan Center for Human Rights’ press release, the four organizations whose mandate it is to pursue justice and accountability, delivered the communication pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, Al-Haq, Aldameer, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights provided evidence of the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014 following the invocation of the controversial Hannibal Directive by the Israeli military forces.
Unlawful attacks against the Palestinian civilian population and their infrastructure and property ensued, killing 255 Palestinians, including 212 civilians, WAFA further reports:
“I witnessed the 1967 war and the 1973 war, but I never saw anything as horrific as what I saw on 1 August. At one point I saw two women, one in a blue dress and one with a child […] headless, thrown into the air by the force of an explosion. I recall seeing a young man flying through the air”, said Abdel Hakim Lafi.
Abdel is a 58-year old engineer whose son was killed during the attack on Rafah, further recounts: “I told Yahia to walk behind me. I said to him that if anyone was going to get hit, I would prefer that it were me – I would prefer to take the shrapnel rather than my son. […] Yahia was hit by a tank shell in the chest about 500 metres from our home. […] I stayed with him.”
The Hannibal Directive – which is ostensibly intended to thwart the abduction of an abducted Israeli soldier – was invoked in Rafah following the reported capture of Israeli 2nd Lt. Hadar Goldin. It transpired, however, that the soldier had died. Israel's attacks on Rafah continued until 4 August, despite the confirmation that the reportedly captured soldier had died in the late evening of 2 August.
During the four days in Rafah, Israeli forces unleashed intensive artillery, tank, and aerial attacks on the civilian population of Rafah. Inhabited houses were attacked without warning at night. Documentation provided by the submitting organisations further reveals that 119 of those killed died in their homes. Two 1,000 lb bombs were dropped on a civilian building, killing 16 people in the nearby street. Civilians in the street were picked off by drones; alongside the dead, there was a proliferation of horrific injuries, including severed limbs. Attacks on ambulances, hospitals, and vehicles led to the evacuation of Rafah’s principal hospital. An attack on an UNRWA school-turned-shelter for displaced people killed 14 people.
The organizations stated that through their second communication, they would seek to assist the prosecutor in establishing that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that high-ranking Israeli military and civilian officials committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during “Operation Protective Edge” in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014.
Four Palestinian human rights organizations submitted, on Wednesday, a second communication to the International Criminal Court (ICC) over Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated in August of 2014.
According to a Al Mezan Center for Human Rights’ press release, the four organizations whose mandate it is to pursue justice and accountability, delivered the communication pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, Al-Haq, Aldameer, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights provided evidence of the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014 following the invocation of the controversial Hannibal Directive by the Israeli military forces.
Unlawful attacks against the Palestinian civilian population and their infrastructure and property ensued, killing 255 Palestinians, including 212 civilians, WAFA further reports:
“I witnessed the 1967 war and the 1973 war, but I never saw anything as horrific as what I saw on 1 August. At one point I saw two women, one in a blue dress and one with a child […] headless, thrown into the air by the force of an explosion. I recall seeing a young man flying through the air”, said Abdel Hakim Lafi.
Abdel is a 58-year old engineer whose son was killed during the attack on Rafah, further recounts: “I told Yahia to walk behind me. I said to him that if anyone was going to get hit, I would prefer that it were me – I would prefer to take the shrapnel rather than my son. […] Yahia was hit by a tank shell in the chest about 500 metres from our home. […] I stayed with him.”
The Hannibal Directive – which is ostensibly intended to thwart the abduction of an abducted Israeli soldier – was invoked in Rafah following the reported capture of Israeli 2nd Lt. Hadar Goldin. It transpired, however, that the soldier had died. Israel's attacks on Rafah continued until 4 August, despite the confirmation that the reportedly captured soldier had died in the late evening of 2 August.
During the four days in Rafah, Israeli forces unleashed intensive artillery, tank, and aerial attacks on the civilian population of Rafah. Inhabited houses were attacked without warning at night. Documentation provided by the submitting organisations further reveals that 119 of those killed died in their homes. Two 1,000 lb bombs were dropped on a civilian building, killing 16 people in the nearby street. Civilians in the street were picked off by drones; alongside the dead, there was a proliferation of horrific injuries, including severed limbs. Attacks on ambulances, hospitals, and vehicles led to the evacuation of Rafah’s principal hospital. An attack on an UNRWA school-turned-shelter for displaced people killed 14 people.
The organizations stated that through their second communication, they would seek to assist the prosecutor in establishing that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that high-ranking Israeli military and civilian officials committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during “Operation Protective Edge” in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014.
7 feb 2016
By Richard Falk
Dear UN Secretary General,
Having read of the vicious attacks on you for venturing some moderate, incontestable criticisms of Israel’s behaviour, I understand well the discomfort you clearly feel. Not since Richard Goldstone chaired the group that released the report detailing apparent Israeli war crimes during its massive attack on Gaza at the end of 2008 have Israel’s big political guns responded with such unwarranted fury, magnified as usual by ultra-Zionist media commentary.
Netanyahu has the audacity to claim that your acknowledgement that it is not unnatural for the Palestinians oppressed for half century to resist and resort to extremism is tantamount to the encouragement of terrorism, what he described as giving a “tailwind to terrorism.” The fact that your intention was quite the opposite hardly matters. And your repeated denunciation of terrorism will be disregarded by these irresponsible critics whose sole objective is to take attention away from the issues raised.
Israel and its keenest supporters have found that there is no better way to do this than by defaming their critics, branding them as soft on terrorism or even as anti-Semites. And it makes no difference whatsoever that you have leaned over backwards, almost falling to the ground, to deflect criticism of Israel during your time as leader of the UN. It is not surprising that you should respond to such behaviour in a New York Times opinion piece by imploring Israel and its friends to refrain from "shooting the messenger" and instead heed the message.
What intrigues and appalls me is that while I was special rapporteur for Occupied Palestine during the period 2008-2014, you chose to attack me personally in public on several occasions, joining with US and Israel diplomats calling for my dismissal and doing the utmost to undermine my credibility while discharging this unpaid UN job under difficult conditions.
At the time, I was doing my best to bear witness to some of the same truths about Israel’s unlawful and immoral behavior that recently got you in similar hot water. My UN mandate was to report upon the reality of Israeli violations of international law while sustaining their apartheid regime of oppressive control over the Palestinian people. The Palestinians need and deserve such a voice as provided by the UN to make governments of the world more aware of their responsibility to take steps that will bring this unprecedented ordeal to an end. In carrying out these duties, it is my hope that future UN special rapporteurs receive the support that they need from future secretary generals.
In my case, hurt and offended by being so unfairly attacked by you, the highest UN official, I was encouraged to seek some kind of explanation from your office, and hopefully even an apology. You never criticised my reports on Palestine or their criticisms of Israel’s policies and practices, but rather focused your venomous remarks on some comments attributed to my views, as expressed on my personal blog, that were concerned with the 9/11 attacks and the Boston marathon bombings. It was obvious from the content of your attack that you relied on a letter written by Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, Israel’s faithful watchdog NGO in Geneva, that gave my rather carefully qualified blog comments an inflammatory twist. But it appeared that you seemed wary of engaging in any debate about the substance of my criticisms of Israel’s policies and practices in my reports.
I called your office, and was referred to your affable aide de camp, whom seemed immediately apologetic, before I was even able to register a complaint and explain to him my actual position on these controversial issues. After listening to what I had to say, he obliquely accepted my concerns by admitting that "we didn’t do due diligence," by which he evidently meant that the secretary-general and his advisors relied on Neuer’s letter rather than reading what I actually wrote on the blog, which was nuanced and rather moderate in tone and content.
This UN official volunteered a further explanation to the effect that “we were under great pressure at the time from the US Congress, and this was an opportunity to show that we were not anti-Israeli.” This incident happened to occur while you were campaigning successfully for a second term as secretary-general, and apparently wanted to reassure Washington that you would not rock the boat if reelected. I venture to say that if you had back then voiced such strong criticisms of Israel’s settlement policy or indicated a similar empathetic understanding of Palestinian resistance, you would never have received Washington’s blessings for a second term as secretary-general. In light of this experience, I felt at the time that you were joining with others in shooting a messenger who was seeking to convey some inconvenient truths about Israel’s behavior.
These truths are rather similar to your own comments about the denial of Palestinian rights, especially with respect to the right of self-determination. The folk wisdom of "what goes around comes around" seems to fit your plight. You who expediently took shots at the messenger are now taking umbrage when the tactic is directed at you. This response is reasonable in this instance but inconsistent with your own past behavior. You say, “..when heartfelt concerns about shortsighted or morally damaging policies emanate from so many sources, including Israel’s closest friends, it cannot be sustainable to keep lashing out at every well-intentioned critic.”
True, of course, but why only now? And only you?
Actually, although your critical stress on settlements and resistance is welcome and important, your overall stance still falls far short of adopting a helpful way forward. You continue to insist misleadingly that compromises are called for by both sides in pursuing the goal of reaching a sustainable peace based on the establishment of a Palestinian state.
I find puzzling the assertion in your article that “I am so concerned that we are reaching a point of no return for the two-state solution.” In your statement of 26 January to the Security Council, you urge Palestinian unity as necessary so that the Palestinians “can instead focus their energies on establishing a stable state as part of a negotiated two-state solution.”
Have you forgotten that every step taken by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to establish unity has been opposed by punitive pushback on Israel’s part, a response endorsed by the United States? And wasn’t that "point of no return" reached some time ago, and certainly after what the American Secretary of State, John Kerry, proclaimed as "the last-chance" negotiations broke down in the spring of 2014 after a year of trading allegations and achieving not a single positive result?
And how, Mr. Ban, is a two-state solution to be achieved over the opposition and resolve of more than 600,000 Israeli settlers, with more expansion underway and even more promised? You acknowledge being “disturbed by statements from senior members of the Israeli government that the aim [of a Palestinian state] should be abandoned altogether.” What you don’t say is that these "senior members" include Israel’s elected prime minister, its president, and its current ambassador to the UN.
In light of this unified opposition to a two-state approach by Israel’s highest governmental leaders, how can you encourage reliance on this discredited diplomatic path that has resulted over and over again in severe encroachments on occupied Palestine and intensified suffering for the Palestinian people? Clinging to the two-state mantra is not neutral.
Delay benefits Israel, harms Palestine. There is every reason to believe that this pattern will continue as long as Israel is not seriously challenged diplomatically and by the sorts of growing pressures mounted by the international solidarity movement and the BDS campaign. More widely, and fundamentally, shooting the messenger is part of a broader Israeli strategy to avoid giving any visibility to substantive criticisms of its behaviour. You are merely the latest victim, and one of the most highly placed.
The intensity of defamation seems to be roughly proportional to the perceived impact of your criticism. In this sense, Mr Secretary General, you have scored highly, especially due to your reminder to the Security Council that the UN will “continue to uphold the right of Palestinians to self-determination”.
This is not the language Israel’s leaders hope to hear from your lips, and hardly consistent with your record of steadfast support for Israel. To be meaningful beyond a ritual affirmation, self-determination must be understood, given present realities, as something more and other than another delusionary embrace of a diplomatically negotiated two-state solution. You also tell the Security Council that “incitement has no place, and that questioning Israel’s right to exist cannot be tolerated.”
Fair enough, but challenging Israel’s postures, policies and practices should be placed high on the UN agenda of unfinished business if what you propose on behalf of the Palestinian people is ever to have a chance of being achieved. We need all to realise what else should not be tolerated: while the Palestinian flag flies outside UN headquarters, the Palestinian people have lived for almost 70 years under the daily brutalities of occupation, refugee camps, Gazan captivity, and involuntary exile.
Sincerely,
Richard Falk UN Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council for Occupied Palestine Professor of International Law
- Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for 40 years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. This article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
Dear UN Secretary General,
Having read of the vicious attacks on you for venturing some moderate, incontestable criticisms of Israel’s behaviour, I understand well the discomfort you clearly feel. Not since Richard Goldstone chaired the group that released the report detailing apparent Israeli war crimes during its massive attack on Gaza at the end of 2008 have Israel’s big political guns responded with such unwarranted fury, magnified as usual by ultra-Zionist media commentary.
Netanyahu has the audacity to claim that your acknowledgement that it is not unnatural for the Palestinians oppressed for half century to resist and resort to extremism is tantamount to the encouragement of terrorism, what he described as giving a “tailwind to terrorism.” The fact that your intention was quite the opposite hardly matters. And your repeated denunciation of terrorism will be disregarded by these irresponsible critics whose sole objective is to take attention away from the issues raised.
Israel and its keenest supporters have found that there is no better way to do this than by defaming their critics, branding them as soft on terrorism or even as anti-Semites. And it makes no difference whatsoever that you have leaned over backwards, almost falling to the ground, to deflect criticism of Israel during your time as leader of the UN. It is not surprising that you should respond to such behaviour in a New York Times opinion piece by imploring Israel and its friends to refrain from "shooting the messenger" and instead heed the message.
What intrigues and appalls me is that while I was special rapporteur for Occupied Palestine during the period 2008-2014, you chose to attack me personally in public on several occasions, joining with US and Israel diplomats calling for my dismissal and doing the utmost to undermine my credibility while discharging this unpaid UN job under difficult conditions.
At the time, I was doing my best to bear witness to some of the same truths about Israel’s unlawful and immoral behavior that recently got you in similar hot water. My UN mandate was to report upon the reality of Israeli violations of international law while sustaining their apartheid regime of oppressive control over the Palestinian people. The Palestinians need and deserve such a voice as provided by the UN to make governments of the world more aware of their responsibility to take steps that will bring this unprecedented ordeal to an end. In carrying out these duties, it is my hope that future UN special rapporteurs receive the support that they need from future secretary generals.
In my case, hurt and offended by being so unfairly attacked by you, the highest UN official, I was encouraged to seek some kind of explanation from your office, and hopefully even an apology. You never criticised my reports on Palestine or their criticisms of Israel’s policies and practices, but rather focused your venomous remarks on some comments attributed to my views, as expressed on my personal blog, that were concerned with the 9/11 attacks and the Boston marathon bombings. It was obvious from the content of your attack that you relied on a letter written by Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, Israel’s faithful watchdog NGO in Geneva, that gave my rather carefully qualified blog comments an inflammatory twist. But it appeared that you seemed wary of engaging in any debate about the substance of my criticisms of Israel’s policies and practices in my reports.
I called your office, and was referred to your affable aide de camp, whom seemed immediately apologetic, before I was even able to register a complaint and explain to him my actual position on these controversial issues. After listening to what I had to say, he obliquely accepted my concerns by admitting that "we didn’t do due diligence," by which he evidently meant that the secretary-general and his advisors relied on Neuer’s letter rather than reading what I actually wrote on the blog, which was nuanced and rather moderate in tone and content.
This UN official volunteered a further explanation to the effect that “we were under great pressure at the time from the US Congress, and this was an opportunity to show that we were not anti-Israeli.” This incident happened to occur while you were campaigning successfully for a second term as secretary-general, and apparently wanted to reassure Washington that you would not rock the boat if reelected. I venture to say that if you had back then voiced such strong criticisms of Israel’s settlement policy or indicated a similar empathetic understanding of Palestinian resistance, you would never have received Washington’s blessings for a second term as secretary-general. In light of this experience, I felt at the time that you were joining with others in shooting a messenger who was seeking to convey some inconvenient truths about Israel’s behavior.
These truths are rather similar to your own comments about the denial of Palestinian rights, especially with respect to the right of self-determination. The folk wisdom of "what goes around comes around" seems to fit your plight. You who expediently took shots at the messenger are now taking umbrage when the tactic is directed at you. This response is reasonable in this instance but inconsistent with your own past behavior. You say, “..when heartfelt concerns about shortsighted or morally damaging policies emanate from so many sources, including Israel’s closest friends, it cannot be sustainable to keep lashing out at every well-intentioned critic.”
True, of course, but why only now? And only you?
Actually, although your critical stress on settlements and resistance is welcome and important, your overall stance still falls far short of adopting a helpful way forward. You continue to insist misleadingly that compromises are called for by both sides in pursuing the goal of reaching a sustainable peace based on the establishment of a Palestinian state.
I find puzzling the assertion in your article that “I am so concerned that we are reaching a point of no return for the two-state solution.” In your statement of 26 January to the Security Council, you urge Palestinian unity as necessary so that the Palestinians “can instead focus their energies on establishing a stable state as part of a negotiated two-state solution.”
Have you forgotten that every step taken by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to establish unity has been opposed by punitive pushback on Israel’s part, a response endorsed by the United States? And wasn’t that "point of no return" reached some time ago, and certainly after what the American Secretary of State, John Kerry, proclaimed as "the last-chance" negotiations broke down in the spring of 2014 after a year of trading allegations and achieving not a single positive result?
And how, Mr. Ban, is a two-state solution to be achieved over the opposition and resolve of more than 600,000 Israeli settlers, with more expansion underway and even more promised? You acknowledge being “disturbed by statements from senior members of the Israeli government that the aim [of a Palestinian state] should be abandoned altogether.” What you don’t say is that these "senior members" include Israel’s elected prime minister, its president, and its current ambassador to the UN.
In light of this unified opposition to a two-state approach by Israel’s highest governmental leaders, how can you encourage reliance on this discredited diplomatic path that has resulted over and over again in severe encroachments on occupied Palestine and intensified suffering for the Palestinian people? Clinging to the two-state mantra is not neutral.
Delay benefits Israel, harms Palestine. There is every reason to believe that this pattern will continue as long as Israel is not seriously challenged diplomatically and by the sorts of growing pressures mounted by the international solidarity movement and the BDS campaign. More widely, and fundamentally, shooting the messenger is part of a broader Israeli strategy to avoid giving any visibility to substantive criticisms of its behaviour. You are merely the latest victim, and one of the most highly placed.
The intensity of defamation seems to be roughly proportional to the perceived impact of your criticism. In this sense, Mr Secretary General, you have scored highly, especially due to your reminder to the Security Council that the UN will “continue to uphold the right of Palestinians to self-determination”.
This is not the language Israel’s leaders hope to hear from your lips, and hardly consistent with your record of steadfast support for Israel. To be meaningful beyond a ritual affirmation, self-determination must be understood, given present realities, as something more and other than another delusionary embrace of a diplomatically negotiated two-state solution. You also tell the Security Council that “incitement has no place, and that questioning Israel’s right to exist cannot be tolerated.”
Fair enough, but challenging Israel’s postures, policies and practices should be placed high on the UN agenda of unfinished business if what you propose on behalf of the Palestinian people is ever to have a chance of being achieved. We need all to realise what else should not be tolerated: while the Palestinian flag flies outside UN headquarters, the Palestinian people have lived for almost 70 years under the daily brutalities of occupation, refugee camps, Gazan captivity, and involuntary exile.
Sincerely,
Richard Falk UN Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council for Occupied Palestine Professor of International Law
- Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for 40 years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. This article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
12 jan 2016
Head of the Negotiation Affairs Department of Palestine Liberation organization (PLO), Saeb Erekat, said that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is expected in 2016 to open an investigation into Israeli violations against Palestinian people.
In his remarks to the Algerian radio, Erekat affirmed that six files were submitted to the ICC that already started to conduct a preliminary investigation into the tabled documents.
The submitted files mainly deal with Palestinian prisoners’ issue, settlement expansion, Gaza aggression, Israeli extrajudicial executions and Dawabsheh arson attack, he explained.
Following the United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 on 29 November 2012, Palestine has become a non-member observer state, Erekat pointed out.
The resolution, he continued, recognized Palestine as an occupied state with its boundaries as they were prior to 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital. It also allows Palestine to apply for membership in 523 international organizations and treaties.
This means that Israeli demolition and ethnic cleaning policy, settlement construction, and daily arrests are war crimes according to the international laws and conventions, according to Erekat’s remarks.
Erekat pointed out that he heads the Supreme National Committee responsible for follow-up with Palestine's Ascension to the International Criminal Court (ICC) which constitutes of 45 members including Hamas Movement.
“After opening a preliminary investigation into the submitted files, we are now expecting a decision for conducting an investigation against Israeli leaders over 2016.”
On the other hand, Erekat said that the region is witnessing a new Sykes-Picot map.
He stated, in conclusion, that no security would be achieved in the Middle East without the establishment of the Palestinian state.
The Palestinian official Saeb Erekat has arrived Sunday in Algeria for a four-day working visit at the invitation of Algeria.
Erekat has been welcomed upon his arrival at Houari-Boumediene International Airport by Minister of State, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Ramtane Lamamra.
In his remarks to the Algerian radio, Erekat affirmed that six files were submitted to the ICC that already started to conduct a preliminary investigation into the tabled documents.
The submitted files mainly deal with Palestinian prisoners’ issue, settlement expansion, Gaza aggression, Israeli extrajudicial executions and Dawabsheh arson attack, he explained.
Following the United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 on 29 November 2012, Palestine has become a non-member observer state, Erekat pointed out.
The resolution, he continued, recognized Palestine as an occupied state with its boundaries as they were prior to 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital. It also allows Palestine to apply for membership in 523 international organizations and treaties.
This means that Israeli demolition and ethnic cleaning policy, settlement construction, and daily arrests are war crimes according to the international laws and conventions, according to Erekat’s remarks.
Erekat pointed out that he heads the Supreme National Committee responsible for follow-up with Palestine's Ascension to the International Criminal Court (ICC) which constitutes of 45 members including Hamas Movement.
“After opening a preliminary investigation into the submitted files, we are now expecting a decision for conducting an investigation against Israeli leaders over 2016.”
On the other hand, Erekat said that the region is witnessing a new Sykes-Picot map.
He stated, in conclusion, that no security would be achieved in the Middle East without the establishment of the Palestinian state.
The Palestinian official Saeb Erekat has arrived Sunday in Algeria for a four-day working visit at the invitation of Algeria.
Erekat has been welcomed upon his arrival at Houari-Boumediene International Airport by Minister of State, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Ramtane Lamamra.
10 jan 2016
|
|
8 jan 2016
The Palestinian Return Center (PRC) accused on Friday the International Criminal Court (ICC) of pro-Israel bias in its new report on Preliminary Examination Activities [PDF] published on November 12th, 2015.
The ICC’s Report on Preliminary Examination Activities provides a section on Gaza in the “Contextual Background” to the alleged crimes that casts doubts on the neutrality of the approach, the PRC said in its report issued on Friday.
The PRC report analyzed each Point (55-56-57-58) of the “Contextual Background” and demonstrated the numerous instances where the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) does not attempt to provide a balanced account of the events. Instead, the OTP omits the Palestinian narrative and even excludes the use of International Law as a tool of reference to describe the history of the conflict and more recent events leading up to the “51-Day War”.
The PRC said that Point 55 of the ICC’s report considered reasonable to describe the situation by writing, “The conflict in Gaza stems as far back as Israel’s occupation of the territory beginning in 1967 and its subsequent conflicts with the organized groups operating in Gaza.”
However, the OTP “ignores a key element of the conflict: in 1948 Israel caused the displacement of approximately 850,000 Palestinians, of which approximately 200,000 had to relocate to Gaza. The dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the expropriation of their homes and lands, upon which much of the State of Israel was built, do not seem to constitute a significant element to be included in the “Contextual Background” by the OTP.
The next point, number 56 offers an instance where the OTP seems to provide a one-sided account of the events leading up to the latest major conflict in Gaza. It is stated: “In response to increasing rocket attacks, in 2007, Israel declared that Hamas had turned Gaza into “hostile territory” and took sanctions against Hamas, imposing restrictions on the passage of certain goods to Gaza and the movement of people to and from Gaza.”
The first problem here is the prosecutor’s decision to begin by stating, “In response to increasing rocket attacks”. While this is the official Israeli position, it cannot be considered a fair or a neutral account. It is ignoring the fact that violence erupting from Gaza might be caused by decades of Israeli breaches of international law and colonial policies.
In light of this, it seems questionable that the OTP would prefer to portray Israel’s official discourse rather than describing the events from an International Law perspective, which would be deemed as a more objective way for the International Criminal Court to explain the ‘Contextual Background’ to the war in Gaza. To use Israel’s interpretation of the events the OTP risks casting the law as an instrument that protects colonial authority at the expense of the right of civilian non-combatants, according to the PRC.
The ICC’s Report on Preliminary Examination Activities provides a section on Gaza in the “Contextual Background” to the alleged crimes that casts doubts on the neutrality of the approach, the PRC said in its report issued on Friday.
The PRC report analyzed each Point (55-56-57-58) of the “Contextual Background” and demonstrated the numerous instances where the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) does not attempt to provide a balanced account of the events. Instead, the OTP omits the Palestinian narrative and even excludes the use of International Law as a tool of reference to describe the history of the conflict and more recent events leading up to the “51-Day War”.
The PRC said that Point 55 of the ICC’s report considered reasonable to describe the situation by writing, “The conflict in Gaza stems as far back as Israel’s occupation of the territory beginning in 1967 and its subsequent conflicts with the organized groups operating in Gaza.”
However, the OTP “ignores a key element of the conflict: in 1948 Israel caused the displacement of approximately 850,000 Palestinians, of which approximately 200,000 had to relocate to Gaza. The dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the expropriation of their homes and lands, upon which much of the State of Israel was built, do not seem to constitute a significant element to be included in the “Contextual Background” by the OTP.
The next point, number 56 offers an instance where the OTP seems to provide a one-sided account of the events leading up to the latest major conflict in Gaza. It is stated: “In response to increasing rocket attacks, in 2007, Israel declared that Hamas had turned Gaza into “hostile territory” and took sanctions against Hamas, imposing restrictions on the passage of certain goods to Gaza and the movement of people to and from Gaza.”
The first problem here is the prosecutor’s decision to begin by stating, “In response to increasing rocket attacks”. While this is the official Israeli position, it cannot be considered a fair or a neutral account. It is ignoring the fact that violence erupting from Gaza might be caused by decades of Israeli breaches of international law and colonial policies.
In light of this, it seems questionable that the OTP would prefer to portray Israel’s official discourse rather than describing the events from an International Law perspective, which would be deemed as a more objective way for the International Criminal Court to explain the ‘Contextual Background’ to the war in Gaza. To use Israel’s interpretation of the events the OTP risks casting the law as an instrument that protects colonial authority at the expense of the right of civilian non-combatants, according to the PRC.
5 jan 2016
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Makarim Wibisono, yesterday submitted his resignation to the President of the Human Rights Council after Israel had repeatedly denied him access to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) stresses that Israel's continuous banning of Special Rapporteurs from entering the oPt is part of the Israeli policy to conceal the truth relevant to the commission of war crimes and grave violations of human rights against the Palestinians, who are the original owners of the land.
Moreover, PCHR highlights that the international community should take a serious position to stop the Israeli violations against the Palestinian people and to put an end to the Israeli non-compliance with the international law.
Mr. Wibisono mentioned in his resignation that repeated requests for access, both written and oral, had been unsuccessful for over 18 months. He also did not receive any reply from Israel to his latest request in October 2015.
Furthermore, Mr. Wibisono underscored that his mandate would not be fulfilled without having direct access to the Palestinian victims in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
"Unfortunately, my efforts to help improve the lives of Palestinian victims of violations under the Israeli occupation have been frustrated every step of the way… It is my sincere hope that whoever succeeds me will manage to resolve the current impasse, and so reassure the Palestinian people that after nearly half a century of occupation the world has not forgotten their plight and that universal human rights are indeed universal," said Mr. Wibisono.
Mr. Wibisono will present his last report to the 31st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2016. This report concludes his only 21-month mandate for which he was assigned by the Human Rights Council in June 2014. His resignation will be put into effect on 13 March 2016.
The Israeli authorities continued to deny the Special Rapporteurs access to the oPt, as according to the spokesperson of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the oPt that was approved by 47 Member States in the Human Rights Council is "biased and distorted".
This was also agreed on by Israel's ally the USA. In addition, Israel kept banning Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur, from entering the oPt during his 6-year mandate.
It should be mentioned that the Special Rapporteur's Mandate is part of the UN Mechanisms to protect human rights pursuant to a Mechanism known as "Special Procedures".
The Special Procedures include independent human rights experts carrying out their duties free of charge with mandates to report human rights violations from a thematic or country-specific perspective.
The Human Rights Council established the position of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the oPt in 1993 and the mandate has so far been renewed.
PCHR denounces banning the Special Rapporteur from entering the oPt and the international community's negativity that renders Israel as an outlaw State.
This ban comes as part of a series of obstacles imposed by the Israeli authorities before all UN inquiry missions; the last of which was the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission following the 2014 Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip.
PCHR warns against the Israeli practices, which reflect the size of Israeli crimes against Palestinians and efforts made to hide those crimes from the world.
PCHR also calls upon:
1. The International community to pressurize Israel to allow the unconditional entry of all UN missions to the oPt;
2. The Human Rights Council and all international mechanisms to exert extra efforts to convey the reality of Israeli violations against Palestinians to the whole world;
3. The UN to activate its human rights mechanisms to face the blatant Israeli challenge of UN Mechanisms and violation of Palestinian rights in the oPt; and
4. All the competent parties at the international level to put an end to the impunity granted to Israel that led to the increase of violations against Palestinians.
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) stresses that Israel's continuous banning of Special Rapporteurs from entering the oPt is part of the Israeli policy to conceal the truth relevant to the commission of war crimes and grave violations of human rights against the Palestinians, who are the original owners of the land.
Moreover, PCHR highlights that the international community should take a serious position to stop the Israeli violations against the Palestinian people and to put an end to the Israeli non-compliance with the international law.
Mr. Wibisono mentioned in his resignation that repeated requests for access, both written and oral, had been unsuccessful for over 18 months. He also did not receive any reply from Israel to his latest request in October 2015.
Furthermore, Mr. Wibisono underscored that his mandate would not be fulfilled without having direct access to the Palestinian victims in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
"Unfortunately, my efforts to help improve the lives of Palestinian victims of violations under the Israeli occupation have been frustrated every step of the way… It is my sincere hope that whoever succeeds me will manage to resolve the current impasse, and so reassure the Palestinian people that after nearly half a century of occupation the world has not forgotten their plight and that universal human rights are indeed universal," said Mr. Wibisono.
Mr. Wibisono will present his last report to the 31st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2016. This report concludes his only 21-month mandate for which he was assigned by the Human Rights Council in June 2014. His resignation will be put into effect on 13 March 2016.
The Israeli authorities continued to deny the Special Rapporteurs access to the oPt, as according to the spokesperson of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the oPt that was approved by 47 Member States in the Human Rights Council is "biased and distorted".
This was also agreed on by Israel's ally the USA. In addition, Israel kept banning Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur, from entering the oPt during his 6-year mandate.
It should be mentioned that the Special Rapporteur's Mandate is part of the UN Mechanisms to protect human rights pursuant to a Mechanism known as "Special Procedures".
The Special Procedures include independent human rights experts carrying out their duties free of charge with mandates to report human rights violations from a thematic or country-specific perspective.
The Human Rights Council established the position of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the oPt in 1993 and the mandate has so far been renewed.
PCHR denounces banning the Special Rapporteur from entering the oPt and the international community's negativity that renders Israel as an outlaw State.
This ban comes as part of a series of obstacles imposed by the Israeli authorities before all UN inquiry missions; the last of which was the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission following the 2014 Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip.
PCHR warns against the Israeli practices, which reflect the size of Israeli crimes against Palestinians and efforts made to hide those crimes from the world.
PCHR also calls upon:
1. The International community to pressurize Israel to allow the unconditional entry of all UN missions to the oPt;
2. The Human Rights Council and all international mechanisms to exert extra efforts to convey the reality of Israeli violations against Palestinians to the whole world;
3. The UN to activate its human rights mechanisms to face the blatant Israeli challenge of UN Mechanisms and violation of Palestinian rights in the oPt; and
4. All the competent parties at the international level to put an end to the impunity granted to Israel that led to the increase of violations against Palestinians.
Page: 2 - 1
