21 mar 2010
An open letter to Ban Ki-moon - One Democratic State Group
The following is an open letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon penned by the One Democratic State Group, a civil
Your Excellency:
You are already well aware of the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza consequent on Israel's devastating military attacks and its siege. As recently as 27 December 2009, you called the blockade of Gaza "unacceptable." While this statement is certainly valid, it constitutes a gross understatement of the actual situation which amounts to slow genocide. Such understatement suggests that you are trimming your language to accommodate US pro-Israeli policy. We live an ongoing, illegal, crippling Israeli siege that has shattered all spheres of life, prompting the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Richard Falk, to describe it as "a prelude to genocide." Your own UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by the highly respected South African judge, Richard Goldstone, found Israel guilty of "war crimes and possible crimes against humanity," as did major international human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The Goldstone report concludes that Israel's war on Gaza was "designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability."
Mr Ban,
The 1948 Genocide Convention clearly says that one instance of genocide is "the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a people in whole or in part.'' That is what has been done to Gaza since the imposition of the blockade by a UN member state, namely Israel, and the massacre of 1,434 Palestinians, 90 percent of whom were civilians, including 434 children.
On your second short visit to Gaza since the end of the Israeli onslaught in 2008-09, you will find what Professor Sara Roy, an expert on Gaza, describes as "a land ripped apart and scarred, the lives of its people blighted. Gaza is decaying under the weight of continued devastation, unable to function normally." Professor Roy concludes that "[T]he decline and disablement of Gaza's economy and society have been deliberate, the result of state policy -- consciously planned, implemented and enforced ... And just as Gaza's demise has been consciously orchestrated, so have the obstacles preventing its recovery." Israel is intent on destroying Gaza because World official bodies and leaders choose to say and do nothing.
As civil society organizations based in Gaza, we call on you to use your position as Secretary-General of the UN, the world body responsible for holding all governments accountable for the safeguarding of the human rights of all peoples under International Law to bring to bear on Israel the full force of your mandate to open the borders of Gaza to allow the import of building materials as well as all the other requirements for decent living conditions for us, the besieged Palestinians of Gaza.
We understand you are coming to Khan Younis to inspect an UNRWA housing project designed to provide housing for Palestinians whose homes were demolished by Israel's war machine and who have been waiting for over five years for replacement. Of course the building project will not have been completed because of the blockade, even though it is an UNRWA project. The brazen refusal of Israel to cooperate with the decision of the international community to re-construct Gaza, for which several billions of euros were pledged, should not be tolerated. Israel's attacks have damaged or completely destroyed many public buildings and have according to the UN's own OCHA report as of 30 April 2009, severely damaged or completely destroyed some 21,000 family dwellings. Many other Palestinians who have spent the past several winters in flimsy tents have also been promised the means to rebuild homes and schools, though to date nothing has been done to alleviate their suffering.
In addition to the very visible lack of shelter, we, in Gaza, also suffer from the contamination of water, air and soil, since the sewage system is unable to function due to power cuts necessitated by lack of fuel to the main generators of the Gaza power grid. Medical conditions due to injuries from phosphorous bombs and other illegal Israeli weapons as well as from water contamination cannot be treated because of the siege. In addition to the ban on building materials, Israel also prevents many other necessities from being imported: lights bulbs, candles, matches, books, refrigerators, shoes, clothing, mattresses, sheets, blankets, tea, coffee, sausages, flour, cows, pasta, cigarettes, fuel, pencils, pens, paper... etc.
Mr Secretary General,
When you visit Khan Younis, keep in mind that a huge UN storage depot was directly targeted by Israeli phosphorus bombs only last year destroying tons of badly needed food and other essentials. At that time your UNRWA Chief John Ging spoke of massive obstacles preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the civilian population of Gaza: those obstacles must be removed. The Red Cross called the Israeli assault "completely and utterly unacceptable based on every known standard of international humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles and values."
We sincerely hope you will live up to your responsibility and speak for the suffering people of Gaza to those who hold the keys that could easily end the barbaric blockade, as the first step towards the implementation of all UN resolutions in Palestine.
Gaza, 2010-03-21 Signed by:
University Teachers' Association in Palestine
General Union for Health Services Workers
General Union for Public Services Workers
General Union for Petrochemical and Gas Workers
General Union for Agricultural Workers
Union of Women's Work Committees
Union of Synergies' Women Unit
Union of Palestinian Women Committees
Women's Studies Society
Working Woman's Society
Arab Cultural Forum
Palestinian Students' Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel
Al-Quds Bank for Culture and Information Society
One Democratic State Group (ODSG)
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=270314
An open letter to Ban Ki-moon - One Democratic State Group
The following is an open letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon penned by the One Democratic State Group, a civil
Your Excellency:
You are already well aware of the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza consequent on Israel's devastating military attacks and its siege. As recently as 27 December 2009, you called the blockade of Gaza "unacceptable." While this statement is certainly valid, it constitutes a gross understatement of the actual situation which amounts to slow genocide. Such understatement suggests that you are trimming your language to accommodate US pro-Israeli policy. We live an ongoing, illegal, crippling Israeli siege that has shattered all spheres of life, prompting the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Richard Falk, to describe it as "a prelude to genocide." Your own UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by the highly respected South African judge, Richard Goldstone, found Israel guilty of "war crimes and possible crimes against humanity," as did major international human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The Goldstone report concludes that Israel's war on Gaza was "designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability."
Mr Ban,
The 1948 Genocide Convention clearly says that one instance of genocide is "the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a people in whole or in part.'' That is what has been done to Gaza since the imposition of the blockade by a UN member state, namely Israel, and the massacre of 1,434 Palestinians, 90 percent of whom were civilians, including 434 children.
On your second short visit to Gaza since the end of the Israeli onslaught in 2008-09, you will find what Professor Sara Roy, an expert on Gaza, describes as "a land ripped apart and scarred, the lives of its people blighted. Gaza is decaying under the weight of continued devastation, unable to function normally." Professor Roy concludes that "[T]he decline and disablement of Gaza's economy and society have been deliberate, the result of state policy -- consciously planned, implemented and enforced ... And just as Gaza's demise has been consciously orchestrated, so have the obstacles preventing its recovery." Israel is intent on destroying Gaza because World official bodies and leaders choose to say and do nothing.
As civil society organizations based in Gaza, we call on you to use your position as Secretary-General of the UN, the world body responsible for holding all governments accountable for the safeguarding of the human rights of all peoples under International Law to bring to bear on Israel the full force of your mandate to open the borders of Gaza to allow the import of building materials as well as all the other requirements for decent living conditions for us, the besieged Palestinians of Gaza.
We understand you are coming to Khan Younis to inspect an UNRWA housing project designed to provide housing for Palestinians whose homes were demolished by Israel's war machine and who have been waiting for over five years for replacement. Of course the building project will not have been completed because of the blockade, even though it is an UNRWA project. The brazen refusal of Israel to cooperate with the decision of the international community to re-construct Gaza, for which several billions of euros were pledged, should not be tolerated. Israel's attacks have damaged or completely destroyed many public buildings and have according to the UN's own OCHA report as of 30 April 2009, severely damaged or completely destroyed some 21,000 family dwellings. Many other Palestinians who have spent the past several winters in flimsy tents have also been promised the means to rebuild homes and schools, though to date nothing has been done to alleviate their suffering.
In addition to the very visible lack of shelter, we, in Gaza, also suffer from the contamination of water, air and soil, since the sewage system is unable to function due to power cuts necessitated by lack of fuel to the main generators of the Gaza power grid. Medical conditions due to injuries from phosphorous bombs and other illegal Israeli weapons as well as from water contamination cannot be treated because of the siege. In addition to the ban on building materials, Israel also prevents many other necessities from being imported: lights bulbs, candles, matches, books, refrigerators, shoes, clothing, mattresses, sheets, blankets, tea, coffee, sausages, flour, cows, pasta, cigarettes, fuel, pencils, pens, paper... etc.
Mr Secretary General,
When you visit Khan Younis, keep in mind that a huge UN storage depot was directly targeted by Israeli phosphorus bombs only last year destroying tons of badly needed food and other essentials. At that time your UNRWA Chief John Ging spoke of massive obstacles preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the civilian population of Gaza: those obstacles must be removed. The Red Cross called the Israeli assault "completely and utterly unacceptable based on every known standard of international humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles and values."
We sincerely hope you will live up to your responsibility and speak for the suffering people of Gaza to those who hold the keys that could easily end the barbaric blockade, as the first step towards the implementation of all UN resolutions in Palestine.
Gaza, 2010-03-21 Signed by:
University Teachers' Association in Palestine
General Union for Health Services Workers
General Union for Public Services Workers
General Union for Petrochemical and Gas Workers
General Union for Agricultural Workers
Union of Women's Work Committees
Union of Synergies' Women Unit
Union of Palestinian Women Committees
Women's Studies Society
Working Woman's Society
Arab Cultural Forum
Palestinian Students' Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel
Al-Quds Bank for Culture and Information Society
One Democratic State Group (ODSG)
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=270314
19 mar 2010
Ayalon the moderate
by Alaa Tartir
Under unusual security arrangements and a high level of anxiety at the London School of Economics, the Brahimi panel took place on 8 March 2010 to discuss the Goldstone report and the peace process in the Middle East. Organized by LSE Global Governance and chaired by Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, this panel brought together former head of the Shin Bet and member of the Knesset Admiral Ami Ayalon, two members of the Goldstone fact-finding mission; Professor Christine Chinkin and Colonel Desmond Travers; and Karma Nabulsi, director of the Civitas project at Oxford University and a former PLO representative.
Prof. Chinkin gave a brief presentation on the mandate and methodology of the Goldstone report and Colonel Travers followed with a detailed explanation of the legality and effectiveness of the use of certain weapons in the Gaza war. As Admiral Ami Ayalon took the podium, he announced "war is horrible. There is no ideal war."
With such a 'promising' introductory statement, I assumed that the admiral or the 'moderate' leader would argue for a better world based on justice and peace. However, and perhaps not surprisingly, his arguments were a frightening prescription for the future of the peace process, declaring that international law cannot bring peace, that meetings and diplomacy should come later, and that there is no need to look for justice. If such views can be dubbed 'moderate' and by issued from an Israeli leader who claims to be a peace-keeper and who launched the People’s Voice Peace Initiative jointly with professor Sari Nusseibeh, then what hope for peace? Where does that leave the prospect of peace? Lots of questions can be raised here.
Prior to his arrival in London, Admiral Ayalon declared in Israel, "I would not come to London to debate the Goldstone report, which I think is one-sided and incorrect. I am coming to debate the Goldstone report and the peace process. Goldstone is written in the language of blame. I believe the only way to respond is the language of responsibility, and the dictionary of the future."
Indeed, in his speech at the LSE, he repeated this position against the mandate of the panel and stated in front of a few hundred audience that "…we can't discuss peace and the Goldstone report in the same panel, because they are two different cultures and atmospheres. To discuss the Goldstone report, we have to bring legal experts and international law and civil rights experts, but also those people can’t create peace. Those people use the language of guilt and blame. This is what they know, they only deal with past events. We need to jump to the future - and even to imagine that we have peace and then go backwards. We need to have a different dictionary, we need a dictionary of responsibility. We should not look for justice, we only need to look for fairness and honesty."
Such arguments were refuted by the other panelists, with Prof. Chinkin replying that there is no doubt that one of the core functions of law is to allocate responsibility. And Dr Nabulsi argued that international law is central to bringing peace; the crisis continues precisely because international law is being ignored and the actors instead rely upon power. Thus, she concluded by saying "I highly recommend to use a different way."
In his 10-minute talk, Admiral Ayalon expressed his views in a disjointed, contradictory manner; he jumped from one topic to another and made sure to emphasize the oft-repeated "danger" of Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism. In the end, he said very little on the Goldstone report. This may be expected from a former commander-in-chief of the navy who may have been out of his depth. Admittedly, he acknowledged that by saying "… for me, I know nothing about the international law, but I was in the battlefield for the last 40 years, I know Hamas and Muslims fundamentalists; I met terror everywhere.
"I was against the war on Gaza, I did my best to stop it, not because we don’t have the right to defend our people, but because I know Hamas’ strategy, and it is not a secret to know Hamas strategy. Just go to their Web site and it is written there in Arabic, English, and Hebrew; they have a clear strategy which is to bring the Israeli army to the populated areas - so, simply, they are using their people as shields. And because of that Israel failed in not allowing the killing of civilian Palestinians."
Moreover, he continued his arguably irrelevant presentation by saying "…we have to use power and defend ourselves, but also in order to defeat Hamas, we have to create a peace process. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin in one of his latest speeches said, I am afraid of a political process and that Palestinians will believe that freedom and end of occupation can be achieved by using diplomacy.' So, Yassin was afraid of a political process; such political processes were supposed to shrink the support by the Palestinian population to Hamas by 18 percent. So, Palestinians need only freedom and better life and economy. However, the problem is the gap of miscommunication. The majority of Palestinians and Israelis want peace. However, they believe that the other side doesn’t believe in peace."
It is not surprising that a former head of Shin Bet spent most of his time talking about Hamas rather than the panel topic. However, while he accused and blamed international law experts for being "prisoners of the past," the admiral fell into the very same trap.
Hoping that the 10 minutes would end soon, the admiral continued telling his stories. While the audience waited for him to discuss the Goldstone report, Ayalon began a story that took place eight years ago. He said "…in 2002, the LSE invited some Israelis and Palestinians to search for better solutions to the conflict in the "burning life" there at that time. So, Iyad Saraaj, my great friend, told me at that time: 'Ami, finally we won!' So I told him, 'are you crazy?' Iyad replied, 'you don’t understand us. All what we want is to see you dying, to see you suffering, and finally now we achieved a balance of power.'"
As Ayalon said, this frustrated him and inspired him to meet Professor Nusseibeh and together they launched their peace initiative. He said "…we did that because we believe that what was missing during all of the previous time is a clear vision of the future; future is the most sensitive nerves, we missed before talking about Jerusalem, refugees, settlers, and security, we have to touch all the nerves although this will be very painful. We argued for only two-state solutions. Israel as a Jewish democratic state and a Palestinian state. This means that we have to give up the settlements ideas and all settlers should be outside the West Bank. We have to pass the law of return of settlers, and at least, I think, 30 percent would return to Israel and this will be a precondition for an improved atmosphere. On the other hand, the Palestinians also have to give up the dream of the return of refugees." Again, it seems that it was a good opportunity for the "peace activist" to redeclare his position toward ending the conflict, but the question is, how many from the audience bought his "prescriptions"?
Admiral Ayalon concluded his speech by assuring the audience that "meetings and diplomacy should come later. The Palestinians need to create unity - until that happens, Israel will not be able to deal with a situation with two Palestinian governments." He didn’t forget to re-emphasize his main "ingredients" in his "prescription" that "there will be no peace by using power, but also international law is not the solution too." And finally, in an attempt to satisfy the audience’s need to hear some discussion on the Goldstone report, he said, "we have to investigate independently. I don’t want Goldstone to tell me what to do; we know."
Finally, when asked by Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi why Israel refused to cooperate with Goldstone fact-finding mission, Admiral Ayalon replied with confidence. "I don’t know. I think that the Government of Israel had the impression that the report was written before the nomination of the committee." Here Brahimi interrupted him, by saying, "no, this is not fair at all to say that."
This rescued the admiral from further blundering in the presence of two respectful members of the committee, which according to the admiral wrote a report before its members were assigned. Here, the admiral reflected his Shin-Betian experience and his mindset, which is based on a conspiracy related environment, one that he himself must be a victim to, as he did say earlier in his speech: "People in the region believe in the conspiracy theory, and this is the main problem of the region; they believe that all is against them."
Surprisingly, however, the admiral confessed that the Israelis missed a golden opportunity offered by the Arab leaders eight years ago in their peace initiative: "... We made a mistake when we didn’t listen to the voices that announced the Arab peace initiative. We don’t understand the change in the Arab world, which is reflected in the change between Khartoum to Beirut."
In this brief, I have not addressed the important and relevant issues raised by the other excellent panelists. Rather, I intended to present a discourse by an Israeli leader who claims that he is pro-peace. However, and sadly enough, this evening an admiral and purportedly moderate Israeli leader only confirmed that Israel is above all of the rules that govern this world, and that international law is binding to all nations but Israel.
It was shocking to hear a "pro-peace" Israeli leader say that there is no need to look for justice. Maybe if the admiral had some spare time, it would be good if he read what Prof. Sen wrote regarding the idea of justice. At this point I find myself wondering how I took it for granted that Admiral Ami Ayalon was a pro-peace Israeli leader, unless the meaning of pro-peace has already been changed.
The author is a doctoral candidate at the London School of Economics.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=267773
Ayalon the moderate
by Alaa Tartir
Under unusual security arrangements and a high level of anxiety at the London School of Economics, the Brahimi panel took place on 8 March 2010 to discuss the Goldstone report and the peace process in the Middle East. Organized by LSE Global Governance and chaired by Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, this panel brought together former head of the Shin Bet and member of the Knesset Admiral Ami Ayalon, two members of the Goldstone fact-finding mission; Professor Christine Chinkin and Colonel Desmond Travers; and Karma Nabulsi, director of the Civitas project at Oxford University and a former PLO representative.
Prof. Chinkin gave a brief presentation on the mandate and methodology of the Goldstone report and Colonel Travers followed with a detailed explanation of the legality and effectiveness of the use of certain weapons in the Gaza war. As Admiral Ami Ayalon took the podium, he announced "war is horrible. There is no ideal war."
With such a 'promising' introductory statement, I assumed that the admiral or the 'moderate' leader would argue for a better world based on justice and peace. However, and perhaps not surprisingly, his arguments were a frightening prescription for the future of the peace process, declaring that international law cannot bring peace, that meetings and diplomacy should come later, and that there is no need to look for justice. If such views can be dubbed 'moderate' and by issued from an Israeli leader who claims to be a peace-keeper and who launched the People’s Voice Peace Initiative jointly with professor Sari Nusseibeh, then what hope for peace? Where does that leave the prospect of peace? Lots of questions can be raised here.
Prior to his arrival in London, Admiral Ayalon declared in Israel, "I would not come to London to debate the Goldstone report, which I think is one-sided and incorrect. I am coming to debate the Goldstone report and the peace process. Goldstone is written in the language of blame. I believe the only way to respond is the language of responsibility, and the dictionary of the future."
Indeed, in his speech at the LSE, he repeated this position against the mandate of the panel and stated in front of a few hundred audience that "…we can't discuss peace and the Goldstone report in the same panel, because they are two different cultures and atmospheres. To discuss the Goldstone report, we have to bring legal experts and international law and civil rights experts, but also those people can’t create peace. Those people use the language of guilt and blame. This is what they know, they only deal with past events. We need to jump to the future - and even to imagine that we have peace and then go backwards. We need to have a different dictionary, we need a dictionary of responsibility. We should not look for justice, we only need to look for fairness and honesty."
Such arguments were refuted by the other panelists, with Prof. Chinkin replying that there is no doubt that one of the core functions of law is to allocate responsibility. And Dr Nabulsi argued that international law is central to bringing peace; the crisis continues precisely because international law is being ignored and the actors instead rely upon power. Thus, she concluded by saying "I highly recommend to use a different way."
In his 10-minute talk, Admiral Ayalon expressed his views in a disjointed, contradictory manner; he jumped from one topic to another and made sure to emphasize the oft-repeated "danger" of Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism. In the end, he said very little on the Goldstone report. This may be expected from a former commander-in-chief of the navy who may have been out of his depth. Admittedly, he acknowledged that by saying "… for me, I know nothing about the international law, but I was in the battlefield for the last 40 years, I know Hamas and Muslims fundamentalists; I met terror everywhere.
"I was against the war on Gaza, I did my best to stop it, not because we don’t have the right to defend our people, but because I know Hamas’ strategy, and it is not a secret to know Hamas strategy. Just go to their Web site and it is written there in Arabic, English, and Hebrew; they have a clear strategy which is to bring the Israeli army to the populated areas - so, simply, they are using their people as shields. And because of that Israel failed in not allowing the killing of civilian Palestinians."
Moreover, he continued his arguably irrelevant presentation by saying "…we have to use power and defend ourselves, but also in order to defeat Hamas, we have to create a peace process. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin in one of his latest speeches said, I am afraid of a political process and that Palestinians will believe that freedom and end of occupation can be achieved by using diplomacy.' So, Yassin was afraid of a political process; such political processes were supposed to shrink the support by the Palestinian population to Hamas by 18 percent. So, Palestinians need only freedom and better life and economy. However, the problem is the gap of miscommunication. The majority of Palestinians and Israelis want peace. However, they believe that the other side doesn’t believe in peace."
It is not surprising that a former head of Shin Bet spent most of his time talking about Hamas rather than the panel topic. However, while he accused and blamed international law experts for being "prisoners of the past," the admiral fell into the very same trap.
Hoping that the 10 minutes would end soon, the admiral continued telling his stories. While the audience waited for him to discuss the Goldstone report, Ayalon began a story that took place eight years ago. He said "…in 2002, the LSE invited some Israelis and Palestinians to search for better solutions to the conflict in the "burning life" there at that time. So, Iyad Saraaj, my great friend, told me at that time: 'Ami, finally we won!' So I told him, 'are you crazy?' Iyad replied, 'you don’t understand us. All what we want is to see you dying, to see you suffering, and finally now we achieved a balance of power.'"
As Ayalon said, this frustrated him and inspired him to meet Professor Nusseibeh and together they launched their peace initiative. He said "…we did that because we believe that what was missing during all of the previous time is a clear vision of the future; future is the most sensitive nerves, we missed before talking about Jerusalem, refugees, settlers, and security, we have to touch all the nerves although this will be very painful. We argued for only two-state solutions. Israel as a Jewish democratic state and a Palestinian state. This means that we have to give up the settlements ideas and all settlers should be outside the West Bank. We have to pass the law of return of settlers, and at least, I think, 30 percent would return to Israel and this will be a precondition for an improved atmosphere. On the other hand, the Palestinians also have to give up the dream of the return of refugees." Again, it seems that it was a good opportunity for the "peace activist" to redeclare his position toward ending the conflict, but the question is, how many from the audience bought his "prescriptions"?
Admiral Ayalon concluded his speech by assuring the audience that "meetings and diplomacy should come later. The Palestinians need to create unity - until that happens, Israel will not be able to deal with a situation with two Palestinian governments." He didn’t forget to re-emphasize his main "ingredients" in his "prescription" that "there will be no peace by using power, but also international law is not the solution too." And finally, in an attempt to satisfy the audience’s need to hear some discussion on the Goldstone report, he said, "we have to investigate independently. I don’t want Goldstone to tell me what to do; we know."
Finally, when asked by Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi why Israel refused to cooperate with Goldstone fact-finding mission, Admiral Ayalon replied with confidence. "I don’t know. I think that the Government of Israel had the impression that the report was written before the nomination of the committee." Here Brahimi interrupted him, by saying, "no, this is not fair at all to say that."
This rescued the admiral from further blundering in the presence of two respectful members of the committee, which according to the admiral wrote a report before its members were assigned. Here, the admiral reflected his Shin-Betian experience and his mindset, which is based on a conspiracy related environment, one that he himself must be a victim to, as he did say earlier in his speech: "People in the region believe in the conspiracy theory, and this is the main problem of the region; they believe that all is against them."
Surprisingly, however, the admiral confessed that the Israelis missed a golden opportunity offered by the Arab leaders eight years ago in their peace initiative: "... We made a mistake when we didn’t listen to the voices that announced the Arab peace initiative. We don’t understand the change in the Arab world, which is reflected in the change between Khartoum to Beirut."
In this brief, I have not addressed the important and relevant issues raised by the other excellent panelists. Rather, I intended to present a discourse by an Israeli leader who claims that he is pro-peace. However, and sadly enough, this evening an admiral and purportedly moderate Israeli leader only confirmed that Israel is above all of the rules that govern this world, and that international law is binding to all nations but Israel.
It was shocking to hear a "pro-peace" Israeli leader say that there is no need to look for justice. Maybe if the admiral had some spare time, it would be good if he read what Prof. Sen wrote regarding the idea of justice. At this point I find myself wondering how I took it for granted that Admiral Ami Ayalon was a pro-peace Israeli leader, unless the meaning of pro-peace has already been changed.
The author is a doctoral candidate at the London School of Economics.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=267773
12 mar 2010
Haniyeh: Freeze negotiations with Israel
De facto Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh urged Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to cut off all direct and indirect negotiations with Israel on Thursday.
The Hamas leader was making reference to President Mahmoud Abbas’ decision, with Arab backing, to enter US-brokered indirect peace negotiations with Israel. Negotiations came to a halt when Israel launched an attack on Gaza in 2008 that left some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead.
Haniyeh, speaking at a conference organized by a government-affiliated workers’ council, said Palestinians “totally reject” the negotiations.
“We are facing three kinds of warfare: economic, political, and military,” he told the workers in besieged Gaza.
He said his government has overcome several challenges since he was elected in 2006.
He also welcomed the European Parliament’s decision on Wednesday to endorse the report of judge Richard Goldstone’s UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza war. The report, [PDF] he said, “reveals the crimes” committed by Israel during the war.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=267963
America to the rescue, (not) again
by Sam Bahour
We are told that US President Barack Obama has taken a leap of political faith in trying to bridge a final peace settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. America's weapon of choice is "proximity talks," with the threat that if either side fails to meet American expectations, the US will squarely and publicly lay blame. If this was a sitcom it would be the opportune time to crack up laughing; regretfully this is not the case.
Real people - whole generations - of Palestinians are on the verge of being locked into another decade of protracted and violent military occupation. Many Israeli lives and hopes are at stake as well.
It has been reported in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, that President Obama submitted a letter of commitment to the Palestinian side to get these indirect "proximity talks" off the ground. The letter notes, "Our core remains a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
This is not the first time a US administration has used its creativity in crafting new terminology to deal with the conflict instead of relying on the time-tested body of international law that provides the keys to real progress. In the past, in place of "independent state" the US has attached such adjectives to the word "state" as "contiguous," "viable," "economically viable," "territorial continuity," and the like. In his use of words, President Obama has just picked up where the failures of past administrations left off.
International law clearly defines what an independent state is and any attempt to redefine it is an act of bad faith.
Israeli failed state
The timing of the US move toward new talks is rather conspicuous as well. Israel is proving itself to be a ‘failed state;’ a ‘rogue state’ which has become a liability to its allies. How are its leaders greeting this latest move?
None other than Israeli Minister of Defense, Major General Ehud Barak, who was behind the failed Camp David peace talks back in 2000 and the 2008/2009 onslaught in Gaza. The major made a bold statement while addressing the Herzliya Conference on policy in Israel. He said, "If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic ... If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don't, it is an apartheid state."
Yes, even Israel’s currently serving top brass is using the “A” word. Only a short few years ago, any Israeli politician would shiver at someone making the comparison between Israeli actions against Palestinians and South African Apartheid.
Another round of US diplomatic acrobatics is just what is needed to introduce a new red herring.
Palestinian leadership
The Palestinian leadership has historically failed to understand that the American "special relationship" with Israel will require countering through much more serious mobilization, organizing, and activism to complement their diplomatic efforts. After the utter failure of the US-sponsored (and micro-managed) Oslo peace process, anyone treating the US as a neutral mediator must be suffering from some form of delirium, all the more so if they are Palestinians.
The US has armed Israel to the teeth, including allowing it to develop a deadly arsenal of nuclear and chemical weapons, not to mention their turning a blind eye on Israel’s outright refusal to sign the non-nuclear proliferation treaty.
The US funds Israel to the tune of 7 million US dollars a day, every day!
The US has used its UN Security Council veto power in the service of covering up for Israeli war crimes spanning from Beirut to Gaza.
The US congress regularly passes non-binding resolutions that incite and provoke more violence against Palestinians. The most recent of these embarrassing resolutions was one that dismissed out-of-hand the findings of the UN’s fact-finding mission led by world renowned Jewish and Zionist Judge Richard Goldstone.
The US took sides in this conflict long ago and any backroom negotiations are bound to produce the same results as previous attempts - a reflection of the might is right equation on the ground today in the Holy Land. If anyone should know better, it should be the Palestinian leadership.
A way out
Negotiations do not always need to be doomed to failure. There is a way the US could play a positive role if they could free themselves from the bear hug the Israeli lobby has on the US political system.
The internationally recognized reference point of international law is the only guiding light that can produce an equitable (not necessarily just) resolution to the conflict. The occupation that started in 1967 is merely one part of the problem. The refugees created when Israel was established in 1948 are another, as is the institutional discrimination against non-Jews in Israel. International law addresses all these problems.
For starters, before trying to find the button to solve all issues in one push (a strategy that has failed multiple times) the US could demand that those items that are absolutely clear in international law be acted upon.
All elements (and there are plenty) of the 1967 Israeli occupation that can be ended should be immediately ended. The siege on Gaza, Jewish-only settlements, the separation barrier built on Palestinians lands, draconian restrictions on Palestinian movement and access, etc., should be removed or ended immediately, so that genuine peace talks can begin in earnest to resolve this historic catastrophe once and for all.
Allowing Israel to hold every piece of the conflict hostage until some yet-to-be found final status resolution is reached is a recipe for more of the same death and destruction.
President Obama has taken the leap; let’s hope he finds some remaining Palestinian ground to land on. Given his new commitment, if he fails, I wonder if he is willing to lay blame where it duly resides for Israel’s continued rogue action—in Washington D.C.
Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American business consultant living in the Palestinian City of Al-Bireh in the West Bank. He is co-author of HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and may be reached at [email protected]
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=268151
Haniyeh: Freeze negotiations with Israel
De facto Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh urged Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to cut off all direct and indirect negotiations with Israel on Thursday.
The Hamas leader was making reference to President Mahmoud Abbas’ decision, with Arab backing, to enter US-brokered indirect peace negotiations with Israel. Negotiations came to a halt when Israel launched an attack on Gaza in 2008 that left some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead.
Haniyeh, speaking at a conference organized by a government-affiliated workers’ council, said Palestinians “totally reject” the negotiations.
“We are facing three kinds of warfare: economic, political, and military,” he told the workers in besieged Gaza.
He said his government has overcome several challenges since he was elected in 2006.
He also welcomed the European Parliament’s decision on Wednesday to endorse the report of judge Richard Goldstone’s UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza war. The report, [PDF] he said, “reveals the crimes” committed by Israel during the war.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=267963
America to the rescue, (not) again
by Sam Bahour
We are told that US President Barack Obama has taken a leap of political faith in trying to bridge a final peace settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. America's weapon of choice is "proximity talks," with the threat that if either side fails to meet American expectations, the US will squarely and publicly lay blame. If this was a sitcom it would be the opportune time to crack up laughing; regretfully this is not the case.
Real people - whole generations - of Palestinians are on the verge of being locked into another decade of protracted and violent military occupation. Many Israeli lives and hopes are at stake as well.
It has been reported in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, that President Obama submitted a letter of commitment to the Palestinian side to get these indirect "proximity talks" off the ground. The letter notes, "Our core remains a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
This is not the first time a US administration has used its creativity in crafting new terminology to deal with the conflict instead of relying on the time-tested body of international law that provides the keys to real progress. In the past, in place of "independent state" the US has attached such adjectives to the word "state" as "contiguous," "viable," "economically viable," "territorial continuity," and the like. In his use of words, President Obama has just picked up where the failures of past administrations left off.
International law clearly defines what an independent state is and any attempt to redefine it is an act of bad faith.
Israeli failed state
The timing of the US move toward new talks is rather conspicuous as well. Israel is proving itself to be a ‘failed state;’ a ‘rogue state’ which has become a liability to its allies. How are its leaders greeting this latest move?
None other than Israeli Minister of Defense, Major General Ehud Barak, who was behind the failed Camp David peace talks back in 2000 and the 2008/2009 onslaught in Gaza. The major made a bold statement while addressing the Herzliya Conference on policy in Israel. He said, "If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic ... If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don't, it is an apartheid state."
Yes, even Israel’s currently serving top brass is using the “A” word. Only a short few years ago, any Israeli politician would shiver at someone making the comparison between Israeli actions against Palestinians and South African Apartheid.
Another round of US diplomatic acrobatics is just what is needed to introduce a new red herring.
Palestinian leadership
The Palestinian leadership has historically failed to understand that the American "special relationship" with Israel will require countering through much more serious mobilization, organizing, and activism to complement their diplomatic efforts. After the utter failure of the US-sponsored (and micro-managed) Oslo peace process, anyone treating the US as a neutral mediator must be suffering from some form of delirium, all the more so if they are Palestinians.
The US has armed Israel to the teeth, including allowing it to develop a deadly arsenal of nuclear and chemical weapons, not to mention their turning a blind eye on Israel’s outright refusal to sign the non-nuclear proliferation treaty.
The US funds Israel to the tune of 7 million US dollars a day, every day!
The US has used its UN Security Council veto power in the service of covering up for Israeli war crimes spanning from Beirut to Gaza.
The US congress regularly passes non-binding resolutions that incite and provoke more violence against Palestinians. The most recent of these embarrassing resolutions was one that dismissed out-of-hand the findings of the UN’s fact-finding mission led by world renowned Jewish and Zionist Judge Richard Goldstone.
The US took sides in this conflict long ago and any backroom negotiations are bound to produce the same results as previous attempts - a reflection of the might is right equation on the ground today in the Holy Land. If anyone should know better, it should be the Palestinian leadership.
A way out
Negotiations do not always need to be doomed to failure. There is a way the US could play a positive role if they could free themselves from the bear hug the Israeli lobby has on the US political system.
The internationally recognized reference point of international law is the only guiding light that can produce an equitable (not necessarily just) resolution to the conflict. The occupation that started in 1967 is merely one part of the problem. The refugees created when Israel was established in 1948 are another, as is the institutional discrimination against non-Jews in Israel. International law addresses all these problems.
For starters, before trying to find the button to solve all issues in one push (a strategy that has failed multiple times) the US could demand that those items that are absolutely clear in international law be acted upon.
All elements (and there are plenty) of the 1967 Israeli occupation that can be ended should be immediately ended. The siege on Gaza, Jewish-only settlements, the separation barrier built on Palestinians lands, draconian restrictions on Palestinian movement and access, etc., should be removed or ended immediately, so that genuine peace talks can begin in earnest to resolve this historic catastrophe once and for all.
Allowing Israel to hold every piece of the conflict hostage until some yet-to-be found final status resolution is reached is a recipe for more of the same death and destruction.
President Obama has taken the leap; let’s hope he finds some remaining Palestinian ground to land on. Given his new commitment, if he fails, I wonder if he is willing to lay blame where it duly resides for Israel’s continued rogue action—in Washington D.C.
Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American business consultant living in the Palestinian City of Al-Bireh in the West Bank. He is co-author of HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and may be reached at [email protected]
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=268151
|
|
An Israeli military prosecutor has indicted two soldiers on charges they made use of a Palestinian boy as a human shield during the winter 2008 assault on the Gaza Strip, the army said Thursday.
In a statement, the military alleged that the accused, both unidentified, engaged in unauthorized conduct when they allegedly instructed a Gaza boy to open several bags suspected to be booby-trapped with explosives. "They exceeded their authority in ways that endangered lives and health," according to an Israeli security source familiar with the charges. The source added that the two were reservists at least until Thursday, but of the rank of staff sergeant during the war. The two soldiers would face prison terms of up to three years if convicted, the same security source told Ma'an on the condition of anonymity. |
The indictments mark the first time Israel has admitted any significant breach of the rules of engagement during the war in Gaza.
The army said its investigation began in June 2009 as soon as military police became aware of the alleged incident, which Israel's military advocate general says occurred during a search in the Tel Al-Hawa neighborhood in Gaza.
Meanwhile, an Israeli military source told Ma'an that the human shield incident was just one among 150 incidents being investigated. Of those, about 40 have been elevated to criminal investigations, the military source said, also on the condition of anonymity.
For its part, the army emphasized that its soldiers were forbidden from making use of civilians before or during the conflict, which left some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead, when a maneuver endangered the lives of non-combatants.
"The IDF is carrying out detailed investigations of various events from Operation Cast Lead," the army said, emphasizing that its investigation was opened in June 2009 and thus "completely unrelated" to a September 2009 UN report that found evidence the Israeli military, along with its Palestinian opponents, may have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza assault.
The final report of Richard Goldstone's UN-backed fact-finding mission urged Israel's military to investigate allegations of war crimes and to hold its forces and leaders responsible on an individual level. To date, however, only two soldiers have been prosecuted for crimes committed during the onslaught -- both for the theft of a Palestinian's credit card that was later used inside Israel.
"The IDF is morally obligated to prevent harming uninvolved civilians and takes numerous measures in order to maintain the values of conduct in warfare and the law by taking legal action against those who breach these moral values," the statement added.
According to the military, its investigation was opened by the military advocate general after it was brought to his attention in a report on matters involving children and armed conflict issued by a special representative to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. It also followed a complaint filed by the Israeli branch of Defense for Children International, the army said.
For its part, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem expressed its hope that the indictment indicates that the Military Police are completing, over a year since the end of hostilities, all investigations into Operation Cast Lead.
"Without detracting from the importance of a criminal investigation and prosecution in this case," B'Tselem reiterated that Military Police investigations "are not the appropriate instrument to investigate allegations regarding operation Cast Lead.
The group said Israel must appoint an Israeli body, external to the army, to conduct an independent and effective investigation.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=268052
The army said its investigation began in June 2009 as soon as military police became aware of the alleged incident, which Israel's military advocate general says occurred during a search in the Tel Al-Hawa neighborhood in Gaza.
Meanwhile, an Israeli military source told Ma'an that the human shield incident was just one among 150 incidents being investigated. Of those, about 40 have been elevated to criminal investigations, the military source said, also on the condition of anonymity.
For its part, the army emphasized that its soldiers were forbidden from making use of civilians before or during the conflict, which left some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead, when a maneuver endangered the lives of non-combatants.
"The IDF is carrying out detailed investigations of various events from Operation Cast Lead," the army said, emphasizing that its investigation was opened in June 2009 and thus "completely unrelated" to a September 2009 UN report that found evidence the Israeli military, along with its Palestinian opponents, may have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza assault.
The final report of Richard Goldstone's UN-backed fact-finding mission urged Israel's military to investigate allegations of war crimes and to hold its forces and leaders responsible on an individual level. To date, however, only two soldiers have been prosecuted for crimes committed during the onslaught -- both for the theft of a Palestinian's credit card that was later used inside Israel.
"The IDF is morally obligated to prevent harming uninvolved civilians and takes numerous measures in order to maintain the values of conduct in warfare and the law by taking legal action against those who breach these moral values," the statement added.
According to the military, its investigation was opened by the military advocate general after it was brought to his attention in a report on matters involving children and armed conflict issued by a special representative to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. It also followed a complaint filed by the Israeli branch of Defense for Children International, the army said.
For its part, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem expressed its hope that the indictment indicates that the Military Police are completing, over a year since the end of hostilities, all investigations into Operation Cast Lead.
"Without detracting from the importance of a criminal investigation and prosecution in this case," B'Tselem reiterated that Military Police investigations "are not the appropriate instrument to investigate allegations regarding operation Cast Lead.
The group said Israel must appoint an Israeli body, external to the army, to conduct an independent and effective investigation.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=268052
10 mar 2010
EU parliament backs Goldstone report
The European Parliament voted on Wednesday to monitor Israeli and Palestinian investigations into alleged war crimes in Gaza and to support the recommendations of a UN investigation into the matter.
The motion passed 325 to 287 with 43 abstentions.
According to the resolution, the parliament "urges both sides to conduct investigations within five months that meet international standards of independence, impartiality, transparency, promptness and effectiveness."
The parliament also called on the EU’s 27 member states to monitor the investigations. It also asked the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, to report back to the body on the issue.
Significantly, the motion also endorsed the report of a UN fact-finding mission led by judge Richard Goldstone, which found evidence of war crimes in the aftermath of Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza in 2008 and 2009.
Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the Gaza war. Goldstone’s 575-page report called on Israeli and Palestinian authorities to investigate war crimes charges. If they failed to do so, the report asks UN bodies to act to bring accused war criminals to justice.
After tasking Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with evaluating Israeli and Palestinian investigations of war crimes, the UN General Assembly in February gave a 5-month extension for the local probes to proceed. Both the Israeli military and the Hamas government in Gaza say they investigated the allegations, but so far neither side has charged anyone with significant wrongdoing.
The European Parliament’s resolution endorsed the recommendation of the Goldstone report, saying it “Reiterates its call on the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Member States to work towards a strong EU common position on the follow-up to the report of the Fact-Finding Mission led by Judge Goldstone on the conflict in Gaza and Southern Israel, publicly demanding the implementation of its recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes.”
On Tuesday Israel announced that it plans to allow Ashton and Ban into Gaza in the coming weeks. Israel routinely bars foreign officials from visiting the besieged territory.
Israel's Foreign Ministry expressed regret over the vote.
"Israel regrets the decision of the European Parliament, which does not avail the peace process and is not commensurate with the principles of law and justice," it said in a statement.
"At a time of international efforts to initiate proximity talks, it is regrettable that the European Parliament chose to express a position on such a controversial issue, which has already been discussed in other forums," the statement said.
"Israel is committed to the peace process and will continue to protect its citizens and soldiers," the statement concluded.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=267677
EU parliament backs Goldstone report
The European Parliament voted on Wednesday to monitor Israeli and Palestinian investigations into alleged war crimes in Gaza and to support the recommendations of a UN investigation into the matter.
The motion passed 325 to 287 with 43 abstentions.
According to the resolution, the parliament "urges both sides to conduct investigations within five months that meet international standards of independence, impartiality, transparency, promptness and effectiveness."
The parliament also called on the EU’s 27 member states to monitor the investigations. It also asked the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, to report back to the body on the issue.
Significantly, the motion also endorsed the report of a UN fact-finding mission led by judge Richard Goldstone, which found evidence of war crimes in the aftermath of Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza in 2008 and 2009.
Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the Gaza war. Goldstone’s 575-page report called on Israeli and Palestinian authorities to investigate war crimes charges. If they failed to do so, the report asks UN bodies to act to bring accused war criminals to justice.
After tasking Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with evaluating Israeli and Palestinian investigations of war crimes, the UN General Assembly in February gave a 5-month extension for the local probes to proceed. Both the Israeli military and the Hamas government in Gaza say they investigated the allegations, but so far neither side has charged anyone with significant wrongdoing.
The European Parliament’s resolution endorsed the recommendation of the Goldstone report, saying it “Reiterates its call on the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Member States to work towards a strong EU common position on the follow-up to the report of the Fact-Finding Mission led by Judge Goldstone on the conflict in Gaza and Southern Israel, publicly demanding the implementation of its recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes.”
On Tuesday Israel announced that it plans to allow Ashton and Ban into Gaza in the coming weeks. Israel routinely bars foreign officials from visiting the besieged territory.
Israel's Foreign Ministry expressed regret over the vote.
"Israel regrets the decision of the European Parliament, which does not avail the peace process and is not commensurate with the principles of law and justice," it said in a statement.
"At a time of international efforts to initiate proximity talks, it is regrettable that the European Parliament chose to express a position on such a controversial issue, which has already been discussed in other forums," the statement said.
"Israel is committed to the peace process and will continue to protect its citizens and soldiers," the statement concluded.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=267677
5 mar 2010
UNHRC expected to pass resolution for Gaza compensation
The 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council is expected to pass a resolution demanding compensation for Gaza residents who suffered losses during Israel's Operation Cast Lead, observers said.
The resolution would be the fourth involving Israel, with two condemning the continued occupation and siege of Palestinian areas and a third on the continued occupation of Syria's Golan Heights.
A UN news brief issued on Monday said Palestinian permanent representative to the UN Ibrahim Khrashi had endorsed the compensation resolution, noting "Israel would contribute the most as it had caused the most damage."
He called on Switzerland to hold a conference before the end of the year on the alleged violations of the Geneva Convention perpetrated by Israel, and asked all stakeholders to demand real and conclusive investigations into allegations laid out by the Goldstone report.
The February move to declare two historic mosques on Palestinian lands "Israeli heritage sites" was discussed at the special session on Palestine, and a resolution demanding Israel stop "targeting of Palestinian civilians" and the "systematic destruction of their cultural heritage" was passed by the council.
According to a report by Al-Jazeera, the US and the EU both opposed the resolution, calling it "unbalanced." The news site said an American representative commented on the resolutions saying they would do nothing to help peace.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=271403
UNHRC expected to pass resolution for Gaza compensation
The 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council is expected to pass a resolution demanding compensation for Gaza residents who suffered losses during Israel's Operation Cast Lead, observers said.
The resolution would be the fourth involving Israel, with two condemning the continued occupation and siege of Palestinian areas and a third on the continued occupation of Syria's Golan Heights.
A UN news brief issued on Monday said Palestinian permanent representative to the UN Ibrahim Khrashi had endorsed the compensation resolution, noting "Israel would contribute the most as it had caused the most damage."
He called on Switzerland to hold a conference before the end of the year on the alleged violations of the Geneva Convention perpetrated by Israel, and asked all stakeholders to demand real and conclusive investigations into allegations laid out by the Goldstone report.
The February move to declare two historic mosques on Palestinian lands "Israeli heritage sites" was discussed at the special session on Palestine, and a resolution demanding Israel stop "targeting of Palestinian civilians" and the "systematic destruction of their cultural heritage" was passed by the council.
According to a report by Al-Jazeera, the US and the EU both opposed the resolution, calling it "unbalanced." The news site said an American representative commented on the resolutions saying they would do nothing to help peace.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=271403
