The AmateurComputerist 
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ 
Winter 2023 The Question of Palestine at the UN Volume 37 No. 1 

Table of Contents 
Articles from 2008 to 2019 


Introduction............................................... Page 1 
Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza Crisis ..................... Page 3 
Response to Israeli Attacks on Gaza ........................... Page 9 
The World Has Been Watching .............................. Page 12 
Israel Attempts to Justify ItsAttack on Gaza..................... Page 16 
Need to End Israeli Siege of Gaza ............................ Page 20 
Principles to Guide a Palestinian-Israeli Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23 
Fr. Brockmann In the Shadow of Deep Crises................... Page 31 
Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements..................... Page 35 
Questions Legalityof Israeli Occupation........................ Page 42 
In Memory of Dumisani Kumalo .............................. Page 45 
On Israel’s Annexation of Palestinian Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 48 


Introduction 

In 1947, the United Nations played a major role in partitioning the 
British Mandate for Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish section. The 
Jewish section soon declared itself the State of Israel which the UN 
supported. This issue of the Amateur Computerist is a collection of articles 
written between 2008 and 2019, highlighting activities at the United 
Nations about the Israeli/Palestinian Question originating from the 1947 
partition. That question remains unsolved. 

Historically, the land of Palestine goes back to pre-biblical times. In 
modern times, the area was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, from the 16th to 

Page 1 


the 20th century. In that time, being mostly inhabited by Muslim Arabs, 
there were always some Jewish and Christian communities. The Ottoman 
Empire collapsed by the end of WWI. The League of Nations then 
facilitated Britain and France to make colonies out of the Middle East 
Ottoman provinces as League of Nations Mandates. The British mandate 
for Palestine was meant to be a transitory phase until Palestine attained the 
status of a fully independent nation. (See: https://www.un.org/en/situa 
tion-in-occupied-palestine-and-israel /history.) Britain encouraged Jewish 
immigration to Palestine. Eventually Britain found itself at war with the 
indigenous Arab Palestinians and with the Jewish settlers. 

In 1947, Britain was withdrawing from its colonies and announced 
to the UN that it was going to end its Mandate and withdraw from 
Palestine. The UN created a Special Committee to prepare for the 
consideration of the question of the future government of Palestine. The 
Special Committee, rather than calling for a democratic solution based on 
the inhabitants, Arab and Jewish and Christian working out a joint future, 
recommended a plan of “partition with economic union” and an internationalization 
of Jerusalem. The Jewish people in Palestine supported the 
partition which gave them the majority of the land despite their being a 
minority of the population. The Arab people in Palestine opposed the 
partition plan. It was implemented against Arab opposition leading to the 
UN soon agreeing to the creation of a separate state of Israel. 

In 1948, 750,000 Palestinians living on the land now called Israel 
were forced by armed Israelis to flee. That forced expulsion from their 
homes and land is known as the Nakba (meaning catastrophe in Arabic. 
(See: https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/.) Many of those 
Palestinians and their descendants still live in refugee camps in Gaza, the 
West Bank and in neighboring countries, organized by the United Nations 
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). (See: 
https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees.) In addition to the Nakba, 
displacement and dispossession of Palestinians by Israeli government settlement 
activity and settler violence is ongoing. (See: https://press.un 
.org/en/2023/sc15424.doc.htm.) 

Over the last 75 years, the partition of Palestine has caused many 
difficulties that the UN has been called on to deal with. The articles here 
document a little of how poorly the UN did from 2008 to 2019. 

Page 2 


There is a need for a broad perspective of what has gone on in the past 
75+ years in order to determine the direction for a just solution to the 
Question of Palestine. That is the purpose of putting together this collection 
of articles on the UN’s reaction to previous events in the conflict. 
There is a need to facilitate discussion and fresh thinking. We hope this 
collection of articles from 2008 to 2019 will contribute to meeting that 
need. 

[Editor’s Note: On January 17, 2008 Israel increased its blockade of the Gaza strip by 
announcing a complete closure of all the land border crossings into Gaza. A response to 
that closure was debated on Jan 30 at the UN Security Council. This article about that 
debate first appeared in OhmyNews International on Feb. 7, 2008.] 

(2008) 

Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza
Crisis 


‘The Silence Is Deafening,’ Says 
Indonesia’s U.N. Ambassador 

by Ronda Hauben 

“(M)y delegation believes that silence on the situation in the Middle 
East is more dangerous than even meetings where there might be a raising 
of temperatures and heat,” explained Dumisani Kumalo, the South African 
ambassador to the United Nations. 

Speaking in the U.N. Security Council discussion held on Jan. 30,1 
Kumalo was responding to a statement by the British Ambassador Sir John 
Sawers. The British ambassador was questioning the usefulness of the 
Security Council discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian question. 

This exchange followed the events of the previous week. The 
Security Council had spent a week struggling to agree on a non-binding 
Presidential statement in response to the Israeli closure of all the border-
crossings into the Gaza Strip. Israel’s action left the Palestinians in Gaza 
without fresh supplies of fuel, food or other necessities vital to life upon 

Page 3 


which they relied. 

By Jan. 29, however, the Council failed to agree on what such a 
statement should say and decided to end their efforts. No statement by the 
Security Council would be issued. 

The original issue brought before the Council was Israel’s closing of 
the border crossings into Gaza. From the beginning of the discussion, 
however, the U.S. framing, focused the statement on the rocket attacks 
into Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself. 

Several members of the Security Council explained that such an 
interpretation runs counter to the obligations of Israel, as an occupying 
power and that punishing the whole population of Gaza for what were the 
acts of a few is contrary to the tenets of the prohibition in international law 
against collective punishment and disproportionate actions. 

In his presentation to the Security Council in its public discussion on 
Jan. 22, Le Luong Minh, the ambassador from Vietnam said, “(W)e 
consider the acts undertaken by the Israeli authorities against Palestinian 
civilians, like any act that literally targets the innocent civilians of a 
country, to be unjustifiable, even in the name of security or under any 
other pretext.” 

Speaking in his capacity as the ambassador from Libya, Giadalla 
Ettalhi, who held the rotating chairmanship of the Council in January, 
said, “We do not believe these practices against civilians can be justified 
on any pretext; nor can they be equated with any other acts.” 

Stating a similar view, Ambassador Michel Kufando of Burkina Faso 
said, “It is not for us today to engage in a rhetorical exercise but to 
concretely consider through a careful review of the situation what the 
Council and the international community can do to put an end to the 
blockade of Gaza. This blockade is unacceptable because it holds hostage 
a whole population subject to all types of privation.” 

Several other ambassadors who spoke at the Jan. 22 SecurityCouncil 
discussion said that the right of a nation to self defense is not intended as 
a license to harm or blockade a civilian population as Israel is doing in 
Gaza. 

The U.S. framing of the situation, however, is that Israel has 
disengaged from Gaza and therefore is no longer an occupying force in 
Gaza. Israel is being attacked by terrorists in Gaza. Israel has the right to 

Page 4 


self defense against Gaza. Though the U.S. framing says that Israel should, 
when feasible, minimize the harm to civilians, the U.S. does not propose 
any means of imposing such an obligation on Israel. 

Others on the Security Council disagree with how the U.S. frames 
the situation in Gaza. The South African ambassador said that though 
Israel had withdrawn from Gaza, “the territory of Gaza remains under de 
facto Israeli occupation. Israel controls Gaza’s air space and Gaza’s 
territorial waters. By virtue of its illegal occupation Israel continues to be 
bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention.” 

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, states, “No 
protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not 
personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of 
intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals 
against protected persons and their property are prohibited.” 

Panama’s Ambassador Ricardo Arias said that “the State of Israel 
has the right to defend itself, however, measures for self-defense should 
be carried out in a restrained manner that is proportionate to the threat.” 
He further explained that “the Actions of the Government of Israel violate 
all humanitarian standards including the most basic rules of international 
law.” 

Participating in the discussion but not a member of the Security 
Council, the Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari challenged the notion that 
Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza. He said that Israel’s claim, “it 
has withdrawn from Gaza is a blatant distortion of the facts. Israel controls 
international borders and all crossing points … . It controls the flow of 
food, medicines, water and electricity. In short, Israel, the occupying 
power as defined under international law has transformed Gaza into a 
sealed ghetto and the West Bank into besieged Bantustans.” 

The Syrian ambassador attributed Israel’s belief that it does not have 
to abide by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to the failure of the 
Security Council and the international community to condemn Israel. 

At the Security Council discussion on Jan. 30, the Indonesian 
ambassador said “The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire and unacceptable. 
The people of Gaza have been suffering not only from the border 
crossings, but also from repeated military incursions by Israel.” 

“Today,” he explained, “we wish to emphasize the importance of a 

Page 5 


common Council response on this humanitarian catastrophe.” 

The South African ambassador added that “The situation in 
Occupied Palestine cannot be ignored any longer. Try as it might, this 
Security Council cannot remain silent and hope that the situation will 
change as time goes by when 1.5 million residents are left without water, 
electricity, and basic sewage situations.” 

“We have to remember,” Kumalo said, “that the United Nations, 
particularlythe Security Council, has a special responsibility in supporting 
a peaceful resolution in the conflict in the Middle East.” 

The fact that the Council was not able to issue a statement against 
the Israeli blockade of Gaza led the Indonesian ambassador to observe, “It 
is indeed a deafening silence.” 

Despite the week long effort of consultations, public meetings, 
various proposed draft statements, experts meeting to draft statements and 
public discussions, the Security Council was not been able to issue a 
statement. Why? 

One week earlier, on Jan. 23, 14 members of the Security Council 
had agreed on a statement in which the Council said it “expresses deep 
concern about the steep deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the 
Gaza Strip due to the closure of all the Gaza Strip’s border crossings.” 
(Draft PRST on the Middle East, Jan. 23, 2008 Rev 2.) 

The draft statement ended with a call that “all parties cease all acts 
of violence including the firing of rockets into Israeli territory and all 
activities which are contrary to international law and endanger civilians.” 

A Presidential statement issued by the Security Council, however, 
requires the agreement of all 15 members. Ambassador Alejandro D. 
Wolff, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N. would not agree 
with the statement. Wolfe said that the issue was that Israel was under 
siege. “We feel very strongly“ he told reporters, “that if you are going to 
address this situation you can’t look to the last page of a book and say 
‘Gee we don’t like the ending of this story’ without knowing what 
preceded it. It’s out of context. It’s not fair.”2 

The following day, on Thursday, the U.S. delegation introduced a 
number of elements it wanted to be included in the statement. At the end 
of the Thursday session of the Council, Kumalo told reporters he was 
depressed “because we still do not have an agreement and the way its 

Page 6 


going its not hopeful.” 

On Friday, the U.S. Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff brought 
an alternative statement to the Council. 

The deliberations on this statement and the consideration of 
modifications to it went on till late in the evening on Friday. Only a few 
journalists were still at the stakeout when the meeting ended and brief 
explanations of what had happened were presented by the few Security 
Council members willing to speak with the press. By then the version of 
the U.S. statement had been modified, but it included a description of the 
attacks on Israel as coming from “terrorists” and wording that Israel was 
suspending its closure of the crossing points. 

Sources describing the Security Council’s response to the modified 
statement on Friday were contradictory. Some sources claimed that 14 
members of the Security Council were prepared to accept the modified 

U.S. statement, but that Libya would not agree. Another source indicated 
that the British and U.S. ambassadors had used a maneuver to make this 
claim as other members of the Security Council only agreed to consider 
the statement, not to approve it. On Friday evening the Libyan ambassador 
said he would send the draft statement to his government for its response, 
which he would present to the Council on Tuesday. 
On Jan. 29, Libya offered alternative wording to modify several 
aspects of the Friday draft. Libya wanted the reference to those who 
launched the rockets into Israel as “terrorist groups” removed, but it 
accepted the wording condemning the launch of the rockets and calling for 
their immediate cessation. Libya objected to the wording indicating that 
Israel suspended its closure, as there had not been evidence this was true. 

Journalists were told that the U.S. rejected the changes and that the 
Council had ended its effort to issue a statement. 

While the Security Council did not issue a statement about Israel’s 
closing the border crossings to Gaza, the Committee on the Exercise of the 
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, created by the General 
Assembly in 1975, explained that “The Bureau deeply regrets that the 
Security Council, having considered the situation at a recent meeting, once 
again failed to act in response to the grave situation in the Occupied 
Palestinian Territory.” 

This Committee of 22 member states and 22 observers created by the 

Page 7 


U.N.’s General Assembly demonstrated that it was possible to issue a 
statement on the situation in Gaza that is consistent with the obligations 
of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. 

The statement says: “The Bureau wishes to restate its position of 
condemning the killing of innocent civilians by both sides, including 
Israeli operations and the firing of rockets from Gaza. At the same time, 
the Bureau considers it totally unacceptable and unjust that the entire 
civilian population of the Gaza Strip is subjected to a suffocating 
economic blockade for the actions of a few militant groups. The Bureau 
supports the Palestinian Authority proposal to assume responsibility for 
the Palestinian side of all of the Gaza Strip’s border crossings.” 

All 15 members of the Security Council had said they were 
concerned for the deteriorating situation in Gaza, it was the U.S. alone that 
prevented the Council from issuing a non-binding Presidential statement 
on Jan. 23 expressing the concern of the Council. The U.S. introduced 
elements for changes in the statement in the Council and then the 
following day presented an alternative statement which changed how the 
problem was to be framed. Then it tried to shift the blame to Libya for the 
failure of the Council to issue a statement condemning Israel’s actions in 
Gaza. 

The Security Council, as the South African Ambassador Kumalo 
explained, has a special obligation with regard to peace and security in the 
Middle East and particularlywith regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 
Article 24 of the U.N. Charter confers on the Security Council the 
“primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and 
security” and obliges the Security Council to carry out its duties on behalf 
of all the member nations of the U.N. When the Council is unable to act 
in an issue so crucial to its obligations under the U.N. charter, it is failing 
in its duties not only on the particular issue, but also in the obligations it 
has to all the member nations of the U.N. This represents a serious 
problem to be considered by the member nations. 

Notes: 

1. See: Security Council Documents: 
S/PV.5824 Security Council 5824th meeting, Jan.22, 2008, 10 a.m. 
S/PV.5824 (Resumption 1) Security Council 5824th meeting, Jan. 22, 2008 3 p.m. 
Page 8 


S/PV.5827 Security Council 5827, Jan. 30, 2008 10 a.m. 

2. Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative, on the 
situation in the Middle East, at the Security Council Stakeout, January 24, 2008. 
[Editor’s Note: On December 27, 2008, Israel began a 22-day war in Gaza. This article 
appeared in OhmyNews International the next day on December 28, 2008 at: 
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.aspmenu=c10400&no=384512 
&rel_no=1 (no longer available).] 

(2008) 

Response to Israeli Attacks on Gaza

by Ronda Hauben 

Reporting from the United Nations, Saturday night Dec. 27, 2008 
through Sunday morning, Dec. 28. – I arrived at the United Nations 
around 9:35 p.m. (EST) after learning that there were to be Security 
Council consultations about what is happening in Gaza. The Security 
Council consultations were scheduled for 10 p.m. (EST). 

The Libyan delegation, on behalf of the Arab League, had asked for 
a meeting of the Security Council to respond to the Israeli attacks on Gaza. 

Soon after the members arrived, some members of the delegations 
told the press that the Security Council members were working on a 
statement which would urge Israel to halt its military operations in Gaza. 
Also, the statement was to call for cessation of rocket attacks on Israel 
from Gaza. 

Another element for the statement was said to be to call for the 
opening of the border crossings into Gaza and unrestricted humanitarian 
access to the area. 

A few others who spoke with the press informally were quick to 
point out that the draft effort to fashion a statement was not something 
agreed to in any way yet by the members of the Security Council. The 
discussion among the members of the Security Council was said to be 
about whether they would hold a meeting this evening and if so what the 
meeting would do. 

A representative of one of the delegations said that his delegation 

Page 9 


wanted either a statement that all members of the Security Council agreed 
on presented to the press this evening, or else an open meeting where all 
members would speak freely. 

Five hours after the meeting began, members of the Security Council 
emerged from their consultations. They had indeed agreed on a statement 
to be read to the press. 

The statement contained several points. These included: 
1) There was serious concern about “the escalation of the situation in 
Gaza.” 
2) The call for “an immediate halt to all violence.” 
3) The call for “all parties to stop immediately all military activities.” 
4) The call for the opening of the border crossings “to ensure the 
continuous provision of humanitarian supplies.” 
The statement “stressed the need for the restoration of calm” toward 
finding a political solution for the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli 
conflict. 

Several of the parties came to speak briefly to the press after the 
Security Council issued its statement. 

The American ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, wanted it 
known that he attributed the root cause of the problem to Hamas’ rocket 
attacks on Israel. He limited the questions he would answer after being 
confronted with questions from reporters asking if what Israel was doing 
in killing over 200 Palestinians was not a disproportionate response. 

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin indicated that there were 
different views among Security Council members about what the root 
cause of the problem was, but that the bottom line was that the situation 
in Gaza had slipped, and that it was important to stop the bloodshed. He 
expressed his appreciation that the matter had been brought to the Security 
Council as a result of a decision of foreign ministers, and that a statement 
had been issued by the Council. 

When asked what the Security Council would do to follow up on the 
statement, he said that the statement had been crafted with some understanding 
by the Israeli government that it was issued, and he expected that 
the parties assumed that there were certain responsibilities given that the 
Security Council had issued a statement. 

The Palestinian observer at the UN explained that if Israel didn’t 

Page 10 


comply, the Arab nations would come back knocking at the door of the 
Security Council. 

Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said that the Security Council 
didn’t have to be in such a rush to issue a statement. 

The French ambassador, Jean-Maurice Ripert, said that the statement 
made clear that the border crossings to Gaza had to be open including 
having access allowed to NGOs, diplomats, and journalists. 

While the members of the SecurityCouncil were discussing what the 
Security Council would do, others at the United Nations presented their 
view of the situation. 

The Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, via his spokesperson had 
issued a statement on Saturday, Dec. 27. It contained a general statement 
about Israel’s obligation to uphold humanitarian law, and human rights 
law, in general condemning “excessive use of force,” but condemning by 
name Hamas for ongoing rocket attacks on Israel. The statement is posted 
at the UN. 

The President of the General Assembly, Miguel d!Escoto 
Brockmann, announced he would cut short his brief Christmas holiday to 
return to the UN from Nicaragua. 

His spokesperson, Enrique Yeves, told journalists, “The General 
Assembly President is extremely worried about the whole situation. He 
believes it is time for the international community to act to prevent this 
kind of aggression from Israel against the civilian population of Palestine.” 

“If we fail,” Yeves explained, “we will all be guilty by omission.” 

The president of the General Assembly is following very closely the 
situation in New York, said Yeves, and he gave journalists a copy of 
Brockmann’s statement. 

The statement expressed in a clear and forthright manner that he 
condemned the actions by Israel. The statement by the president of the 
General Assembly is: 

The behavior by Israel in bombarding Gaza is simply the 

commission of wanton aggression by a very powerful state 

against a territory that [it] illegally occupies. 

Time has come to take firm action if the United Nations does 

not want to be rightly accused of complicity by omission. 

The Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and 

Page 11 


massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined 
in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of 
an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of 
war. 
Those violations include: 
Collective punishment – the entire 1.5 million people who live 
in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions 
of a few militants. 
Targeting civilians – the air strikes were aimed at civilian areas 
in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, 
certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East. 
Disproportionate military response – the air strikes have not 
only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza’s 
elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of 
civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students 
attempting to find transportation home from the university. 
I remind all member states of the United Nations that the UN 
continues to be bound to an independent obligation to protect 
any civilian population facing massive violations of international 
humanitarian law regardless of what country may be 
responsible for those violations. 
I call on all Member States, as well as officials and every 
relevant organ of the United Nations system, to move expeditiously 
not only to condemn Israel’s serious violations, but to 
develop new approaches to providing real protection for the 
Palestinian people. 

[Editor’s Note: In early January 2009 the UN continued to fail to take action addressing 
the Israeli hostilities in Gaza, This article about that failure appeared in OhmyNews 
International on January 6, 2009 at: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_ 
view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384569&rel_no=1. (no longer available.)] 

(2009) 

The World Has Been Watching

The UN and the Failure to Act to Stop Attack on Gaza 

Page 12 


by Ronda Hauben 

On the evening of Jan. 3, 2009, the President of the General 
Assembly, Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann, arrived at the UN as the 
Security Council was preparing to hold a closed door meeting about the 
2008 Gaza crisis. 

Earlier in the day, Israel had escalated the previous eight days of 
bombing of Gaza by beginning a ground invasion into the territory. 

The situation in Gaza is that 1.5 million civilians are trapped in a 
virtual prison. For 18 months prior to the invasion, Israel has blockaded 
the crossing points into Gaza that it controls and Egypt has closed the one 
crossing point it has control over. 

Responding to the question from a journalist about what his reaction 
was to Israel’s actions in Gaza and the Israeli ground attack, Brockmann 
said, “I think it’s a monstrosity. There’s no other way to name it.”1 

He went on to explain that “once again the world is watching in 
dismay the disfunctionality of the Security Council.” The shame of this, 
he said, is that “people are dying.” 

Such activity by the Security Council, Brockmann said, is “what is 
responsible for the loss of prestige and the bad image” that the 
disfunctionality results in. “The Security Council,” he explained, “is in 
very urgent need of profound reform.” 

Subsequent events on Jan. 3 at the Security Council demonstrated 
the accuracy of Brockmann’s description of the current state of the 
Security Council. 

This was the first meeting of the Security Council in 2009. Five 
newly elected nations replaced five outgoing members. The new members 
were Turkey, Mexico, Uganda, Japan and Austria. They replaced 
Indonesia, Panama, South Africa, Belgium and Italy. 

A problem, however, seemed to be that the newly elected members 
did not have the same understanding of the dynamics and how to deal with 
them that the outgoing elected members had learned from their two years 
on the council. 

While several of the outgoing members had voiced2 their commitment 
to having open meetings of the Security Council – especially when 
there was a dispute that couldn’t be resolved – the new members and 

Page 13 


others on the Council allowed the meeting on Jan. 3 to be a closed 
meeting. The discussion and actions of the Security Council were only 
available from second hand reports. 

During a similar meeting of the 2008 Security Council on Dec. 2728, 
one of the outgoing ambassadors, South Africa’s Domisani Kumalo 
told journalists that he was insisting on an open meeting if the Security 
Council did not, at least, come to an agreed upon statement for the press. 

At the first Security Council meeting in 2009, however, it is reported 
that no ambassador insisted on an open meeting. Hence there was neither 
an agreed upon press statement from Council members, nor was there an 
open meeting. 

Describing the events of the Jan. 3 meeting, the Egyptian Ambassador, 
Maged A. Abdelaziz, told the press that, “we find regrettably that the 
Security Council is downgrading its response.”3 He was referring to the 
fact that the U.S. Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff would not even agree 
to make the previous weekend’s press statement into a Presidential 
statement. Nor would the U.S. agree to a press statement like that of the 
previous Saturday, calling for an immediate halt to all violence. 

Significantly, Israel’s escalation of violence against Palestinians in 
Gaza, represented by the Israeli land invasion, was greeted with official 
silence at the first meeting of 2009 of the Security Council. The Security 
Council was silent on the fact that the large number of civilian deaths and 
injuries and the massive destruction of civilian targets in Gaza demonstrated 
that Israel was committing widespread collective punishment of 
civilians in Gaza.4 

During Brockmann’s comments to the press, he had referred to 
“other possible steps” that were being considered. 

Some member nations of the UN are pointing to General Assembly 
Resolution 377 “Uniting for Peace”5 as a procedure to be invoked to 
respond to the problem when a permanent member of the Security Council 
blocks action on an urgent issue, as the U.S. did on Jan. 3. 

The Uniting for Peace resolution notes that the blocking of urgent 
action by a permanent member of the Security Council does not relieve the 
members of the UN of their responsibility under the charter. Under Article 
24 of the UN charter, members of the UN confer “on the Security Council 
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and 

Page 14 


security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility 
the Security Council acts on their behalf.” 

When the Security Council fails to carry out such duties however, 
the General Assembly can assume the responsibility. If the General 
Assembly is in session, a meeting is to be called. If the General Assembly 
is not in session, as is currently the case, there is a procedure to call for an 
Emergency Session, which is to meet within 24 hours of the request. 

There have been press reports that member nations of the UN, like 
members of the 57 nations of the Organization of Islamic Conference 
(OIC), or like members of the 117 non-aligned nations are working to start 
the process to call for an emergency meeting of the General Assembly 
about the Gaza crisis if the Security Council continues to be unable to act 
on the need for a cease fire and the opening of the border crossings into 
Gaza.6 

There have been ongoing and growing demonstrations around the 
world of people upset about the lack of action by their governments to find 
a way to stop Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. The persistent failure of the 
UN Security Council over the past 18 months to stop the siege of Gaza has 
helped to set the conditions for the current attack on the Palestinians by 
Israel. 

Angry demonstrations around the world are evidence that this 
inaction is an affront, not only to the besieged Palestinians but to people 
around the world who condemn Israel’s invasion of Gaza. In his comments 
to the press on Jan. 3, Brockmann said that “what is really 
responsible [for the current violent situation in Gaza –ed.] I think is the 
unfulfilled resolutions of the Security Council” with regard to the 
Palestinian crisis. 

“The world has been watching,” he noted. 

Notes: 

1. Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by H.E. Mr. Miguel d!Escoto 
Brockmann, President of the 63rd session of the General Assembly on the situation in the 
Middle East, including the Palestinian question. [Webcast: Archived Video -7 minutes] 
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/stakeout/2009/so090103pm2.rm. (No longer 
available.) 
See: also Ronda Hauben “Security Council and Others at UN Respond to Israeli Attacks 
Page 15 


on Gaza, Press statement issued by Security Council after 5 hours of consultations,” 
OhmyNews International, Dec. 28, 2008.http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article 
_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384512&rel_no=1. (No longer available.) 

2. Ronda Hauben, “Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza Crisis: The Silence is 
Deafening Says Indonesia’s Ambassador to the UN,” OhmyNews International, Feb. 7, 
2008. 
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=16&no=3816 
89&rel_no=1. (No longer available.) 
3. Egypt Media Stakeout: Permanent Representative of Egypt, H.E. Mr. Maged A. 
Abdelaziz [See: especially Minutes 18:47-20:52] http://webcast.un.org/ramgen 
/ondemand/stakeout /2009/so090103pm3.rm. (No longer available.) 
4. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, states, “No protected person may 
be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties 
and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is 
prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.” 
5. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/377(V) A 3 November 1950 377 (V). Uniting 
for Peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolu 
tion_377. 
6. Indonesia and Malaysia are two such nations. See: for example, Abdul Khalik and 
Lilian Budianto, “RI pushes for UN emergency meeting” The Jakarta Post, Jakarta. 
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/01/06/ri-pushes-un-emergency-meeting.html. 
“President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said Monday that Indonesia would continue its 
political and diplomatic efforts to push the Security Council to issue a resolution to stop 
Israeli attacks and force both sides to return to peaceful dialog to solve the conflict.” 
“But if we can’t get a resolution through the Security Council then we will use the 
alternative of an emergency meeting at the General Assembly to force a cease fire to stop 
the hostilities that have claimed many lives,” he told reporters at the Presidential office. 
[Editor’s Note: During Israel’s 2008-2009 military operations in Gaza, this article 
appeared in OhmyNews International on January 12, 2009 at: http://english.ohmynews 
.com/articleview/article _view.asp?no=384602&rel_no=1 (no longer available).] 

(2009) 

Israel Attempts to Justify 
Its Attack on Gaza 


by Ronda Hauben 

In a letter submitted to Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the 

Page 16 


United Nations, and to the President of the Security Council for the month 
of January (S/2009/6, Jan. 6, 2009), Israel informs them that it has 
expanded its military operations in the Gaza Strip. Israel claims this is its 
right under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Israel states 
that this is a “defensive military operation” and that it has begun this 
military operation only “after exhausting all other means.” 

The letter states “Israel is not at war with the Palestinian people.” It 
states that Israel is doing its “utmost to avoid and minimize civilian 
casualties and to take the necessary precautionary measures in accordance 
with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.” Also Israel 
claims that it “makes – and will continue to make every effort to allow 
humanitarian relief into the Gaza Strip.” 

Describing the nature of Israel’s attack on the political infrastructure 
of Gaza, Sarah Leah Whitson, the Executive Director of the Middle East 
and North American Division of Human Rights Watch, in a press 
conference at the United Nations, presented a different view of what Israel 
is doing. She explained that under international law only combatants who 
are actively engaged in fighting are legitimate subjects of attack. (Press 
Conference, Jan. 7, 2009.1) 

In its bombardment, Israel has targeted the political and civilian 
infrastructure such as police stations. It is Israel’s burden of proof to show 
that the police were indeed Hamas militants. Instead, Whitson noted, Israel 
targeted police stations “on a blanket basis.” 

Similarly, she pointed out, Israel targeted a Hamas Official at the 
Ministry of Health, and the Hamas media broadcasting station. 

Whitson maintained that under international law, the closure of the 
crossing points into Gaza, the blockade that Israel and Egypt have 
participated in imposing on the people of Gaza, is the imposition of 
collective punishment on a civilian population. The people suffering from 
the effects of the blockade are civilians, rather than the effects being 
restricted to the combatants Israel claimed it was fighting. Moreover, 
Israel, as the occupying power over Gaza, has the primary responsibility 
to provide food and medicine for the people of Gaza, but instead has 
prevented the people from having access to the goods and services 
necessary for life. 

The rationale presented by Israel in its letter to the United Nations 

Page 17 


is quite different from the facts. The claim that its military bombardment 
of Gaza is defensive in nature is contrary to its announcement that it has 
attacked the political infrastructure of Gaza, a political infrastructure that 
was the result of the Palestinian people voting in January 2006 for Hamas 
as its political representatives. 

In an interview by UN radio with Richard Falk, the UN Human 
Rights Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian territories, about the crisis 
in Gaza (Interview on Gaza, Jan. 2, 2009.2) Falk maintains that the 
“maintenance of a blockade on a society is treated as an act of war.” 
Imposing such a blockade and then militarily attacking the people of Gaza, 
as Israel has done since Dec. 27, is “a massive and severe violation of the 
prohibition on collective punishment which is contained in Article 33 of 
the Geneva convention.” Falk also explains that Israel’s failure to provide 
adequate food and medicine for a population that is under its occupation, 
is a continuing violation of Article 55 of the same international treaty. 

Falk describes how Hamas adhered to the cease-fire agreed to in 
June 2008 by not launching rocket attacks on Israel, but that Israel broke 
the cease-fire agreement by failing to restore humanitarian supplies as they 
had agreed to do. (UN radio, Interview with Richard Falk, Jan. 9, 2009.3) 
Israel is not defending its own territory from an invasion, but attacking 
another political community, one that it has a responsibility to maintain 
under humanitarian law. According to Falk, Israel, by controlling land, sea 
and air access to Gaza, is the occupying power in Gaza. 

It was not only that Israel failed to allow food, fuel, and medical 
supplies into Gaza as it was obliged to do under its agreement with 
Hamas, but on Nov. 4, 2008, when much of the world was distracted with 
the U.S. election, Israel launched an attack on Gaza, resulting in at least 
six deaths. This act of Israel broke the cease-fire. Hence Israel’s attack on 
Gaza is not defensive as its actions were the cause of the escalation of 
hostilities. Then when Hamas offered to agree to a continuation of the 
cease-fire for 10 years if the blockade was lifted, Israel ignored the offer. 
Falk says Israel’s action in ignoring the offer by Hamas to negotiate how 
to continue the cease-fire “is a violation of international law which 
requires a government to use every diplomatic option before they have 
recourse to war.” 

An article by Jimmy Carter similarly details how Hamas did not 

Page 18 


break the cease-fire, just as it was Hamas that offered to negotiate with 
Israel to extend the cease-fire. (Jimmy Carter, “Gaza: an unnecessary 
war,” 1/8/09, Mercury News.4) Carter notes that the people of Gaza “were 
being starved” by Israel’s actions enforcing the blockade. Carter describes 
his efforts in mid-December to extend the soon-to-expire six-month cease-
fire deadline. The issue for Hamas was the opening of the crossing points 
into Gaza to restore access to needed supplies for the people of Gaza. 
Carter reports that Israeli officials “informally proposed that 15 percent of 
normal supplies might be possible.” Carter relates how this was “unacceptable 
to Hamas and hostilities erupted.” 

While Israel has presented its rationale for its attack on Gaza to the 
United Nations, claiming that it is acting in a just manner, the Security 
Council has passed a binding resolution calling for a cease-fire and 
withdrawal from Gaza. Israel is ignoring the resolution, though as a 
member state of the United Nations, it has an obligation to abide by the 
decisions of the Security Council. 

Under Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security 
Council has the authority to call upon the parties to settle their dispute by 
peaceful means. More civilians are being killed and wounded every day 
that Israel continues its military attack and blockade of Gaza, yet Israel 
continues to ignore its obligations to cease its attacks. 

The crisis in Gaza is a test of the United Nations and the international 
community. Can a means be found to require Israel to live up to its 
obligations as an occupying power to the Palestinian people in their 
struggle for self determination? This is a critical challenge facing the 
United Nations and the international community. 

Many protests and demonstrations are taking place around the world 
in support of the Palestinian people and against the attack by Israel on 
Gaza. These demonstrations are an indication that there is public opinion 
and grassroots pressure for the United Nations and member nations to let 
Israel know the need to fulfill its obligations under the UN charter and 
international law. The struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination 
and against occupation, as covered under Article 73 and 74 of the 
Charter of the UN, is a struggle that deserves the support of the member 
nations and of people around the world. 

Page 19 


Notes: 

1. UN Press Conference: Yazdan Al Amawi, team leader, Care’s West Bank and Gaza 
program, Allyn Dhynes, communications manager, World Vision International, Sarah 
Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director, Human Rights Watch, to brief on 
the humanitarian situation in Gaza. January 7, 2009. 
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2009/pc090107am1.rm. (No 
longer available.) 
2. UN radio’s Samir Aldarabi spoke to Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Rapporteur 
on the Occupied Palestinian territories about the situation in Gaza. January 2, 2009 
http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/67184.html. (No longer available.) 
3. UN Radio’s Samir Imtair Aldarabi spoke to Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights 
Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories about the human 
rights violations in Gaza. January 9, 2009. http://downloads.unmultimedia.org/radio/en 
/real/2009/090109-falk2.rm?save. (No longer available.) 
4. Jimmy Carter, “Gaza: An Unnecessary War,” The Mercury News, January 8, 2009. 
https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/01/08/jimmy-carter-gaza-an-unnecessary-war/ 

(access restricted) 

[Editor’s Note: On January 18, 2009, a truce/ceasefire ended the 22-day conflict in Gaza 
known as the 2008-2009 Gaza War. UN officials visited Gaza soon thereafter. The 
following article about two such visits appeared in OhmyNews International on January 
30, 2009 at: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.aspmenuc10400 
no=384718&rel_no=1 (No longer available.).] 

(2009) 

UN Officials Present Need to End 
Israeli Siege of Gaza to Security Council

by Ronda Hauben 

“Every Gazan projects a sense of having stared death in the face. 
Every Gazan has a tale of profound grief to tell,” recounted Karen 
AbuZayd, the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and 
Works Agency (UNRWA) in her presentation to the Security Council on 
Tuesday before they went into closed session. 

She reported that there had been a systematic destruction in Gaza to 
schools, universities, residential buildings, factories, shops and farms. 

Page 20 


(Karen AbuZayd’s Statement to the Security Council, Jan. 27, 2009)1 

AbuZayd told the Security Council that “There is rage against the 
attackers for often failing to distinguish between military targets and 
civilians and there is also resentment against the international community 
for having allowed first the siege and then the war to go on for so long.”2 

Also speaking to the Security Council before they went into closed 
session was John Holmes, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian 
Affairs and Emergency Relief. Holmes explains how he visited Gaza from 
Jan. 21 to 25, 2009. 

Describing the widespread destruction to Gaza’s economic and civil 
infrastructure, he reported, for example, that the entire industrial and 
residential area in East Jabalia had been systematically bulldozed, along 
with other serious damage to medical facilities, water, sanitation and other 
critical infrastructure, including damage to UN facilities. “I saw the 
UNRWA compound warehouse still smouldering, and the OCHA office 
in the UNSCO compound, where my own staff used to work, damaged 
beyond use,” Holmes reported. 

Both AbuZayd and Holmes emphasized the impossibility of any 
improvement in the situation in Gaza without the lifting by Israel of the 
blockade. “All Gaza’s borders must be opened and kept open continuously 
(including at Karni, Sofa, Nahal Oz, Kerem Shalom, Erez and Rafah) to 
allow two way freedom of movement for people, goods and cash,” 
AbuZayd told the Security Council. 

“Recovery requires the free inflow of humanitarian and commercial 
supplies,” she stressed. “Reconstruction demands open borders that enable 
the importation of construction materials and the export of products and 
goods from Gaza.” 

“Let me emphasize again,” Holmes reiterated, “the unacceptability 
of the status quo ante, with a limited trickle of items into Gaza continuing 
the effective collective punishment of the civilian population – and the 
resultant counterproductive reliance on tunnels for daily essentials, and 
further build up of frustration of anger.” 

He explained the critical need to open Gaza to at least 500 truckloads 
of goods daily, including commercial traffic, up from the 120 truckloads 
that Israel allows on “good days,” in contrast to the frequent situation 
when fewer than 120 truckloads are given permission to enter Gaza, and 

Page 21 


the times when no trucks are allowed to enter as the crossing points are 
closed by Israel. 

Holmes also described how many humanitarian workers, including 
those from international NGOs, “continue to be refused regular entry” to 
Gaza. 

“We already see relief goods piling up in Egypt for lack of ready 
access,” Holmes reported. Reminding the members of the Security 
Council that they themselves passed Resolution 1860 (2009) which 
provides for “unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of 
humanitarian assistance,” Holmes pointed to the importance of this critical 
principle. 

Moreover, Holmes explained that “Israel has a particular responsibility 
as the occupying power in this context, because of its control of Gaza’s 
borders with Israel, to respect the relevant provisions of international 
humanitarian law.” (See: for example, Articles 73 and 74 of the United 
Nations Charter) 

As soon as the reports by Holmes and AbuZayd had been presented, 
the Security Council went into a closed session. 

When the closed session with Holmes and AbuZayd was over, these 
two UN officials came to speak with the press. 

No member of the SecurityCouncil, however, was available to speak 
with the press. Journalists wondered why not even the Security Council 
President was available to comment on these important reports on the 
situation in Gaza and the need for the Security Council to act on getting 
Israel to lift the siege. 

Had the reports about devastated Gaza as a “giant open-air prison” 
fallen on deaf ears at the Security Council? 

The lack of any public response from any member of the Security 
Council to these two heart wrenching reports is but another sign of the 
failure of the Security Council to demonstrate its ability to carry out its 
mandate. 

The failure of the Security Council to act with regard to the siege 
against Gaza began over a year ago.3 

The growing calls for Security Council reform can only be further 
fueled by this lack of action by the Security Council, which the Indonesian 
ambassador described as, “The silence is deafening.” 

Page 22 


Notes: 

1. See: Security Council: The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian 
question. [Print version of talk, Security Council S/PV.6077], also Webcast : version of 
Archived Video – English: 26 minutes. http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc 
/2009/sc090127pm2. (No longer available.) 
2. For background see: for example: Ronda Hauben, “Marathon UN Meeting on Gaza 
Goes Nowhere: The ability of the Security Council to function breaking down,” 
OhmyNews International, March 4, 2008. http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview 
/article _view.asp?menu=c10400&no=381957&rel_no=1.(No longer available.) 
Ronda Hauben, “Israel Attempts to Justify Its Attack on Gaza. The obligations of Israel 
as an occupying power under the UN Charter,” OhmyNews International, Jan. 12, 2009. 
(Available in this issue.) 
3. Ronda Hauben, “Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza Crisis ‘The silence is 
deafening,’ says Indonesia’s UN Ambassador,” OhmyNews International, Feb. 7, 2008. 
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400 
no=381689&rel_no=1. (No longer available online. Available in this issue.) 
[Editor’s Note: For 22 days, from Dec 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009 there was an 
Israel/Palestinian conflict in the occupied Gaza strip. On January 29, 2009, a panel was 
held at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, titled “Gaza: 
The Case for Middle East Peace.” The following article is a report about that panel. It 
appeared in OhmyNews International on February 22, 2009 at: http://english 
.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu =c10400&no=384849&rel_no=1 (No 
longer available.)] 

(2009) 

What Principles Guide the UN in 
Creating a Palestinian-Israeli Peace
Framework? 


Davos Talks by Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Amr 
Moussa on Steps Needed to Build Peace Process 


by Ronda Hauben 

Part I. – Analysis of Situation 

The Palestinians in Gaza continue to suffer under the siege created 

Page 23 


by Israel and Egypt closing the border crossings into Gaza. Who is 
responsible? What can be done to get the siege lifted? 

Such questions are on the minds of many people around the world. 
The siege of Gaza has gone on for many months and continues, even after 
the devastation, deaths and injuries of the Palestinians caused by the recent 
22-day Israeli military assault on Gaza. 

Though these are serious questions, they rarely get public attention 
and discussion. One recent exception surprisingly was a panel held at the 
World Economic Forum in Davos last month. The panel session was titled 
“Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace.” David Ignatius of the Washington 
Post was the moderator. On the panel were the UN Secretary-General, 
Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa, the 
Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the President of 
Israel, Shimon Peres. 

In his instructions to the panel, Ignatius asked members to discuss, 
“What needs to be done to prevent the Middle East peace process from 
slipping back.”1 

After Ban Ki-moon gave a short set of comments, Erdogan was 
called on to speak. He proposed that “we need to do a proper analysis of 
the current situation in order to determine what steps need to be taken.” 

He pointed to the period six months earlier when there was a cease 
fire agreed to by Israel and Hamas. The Turkish Prime Minister reminded 
the audience that for six months there had been “No problem for rocket 
attacks” on Israel. The Israeli obligation for the cease fire then was “to lift 
the embargo,” that Israel had imposed on Gaza. 

But Israel didn’t fulfill its part of the truce agreement. 

Erdogan went on to discuss what he saw as one of the key problems 
to be solved if the circumstances of the Palestinians had any chance of 
being improved. 

That problem was how to heal the breach between the Palestinian 
factions, particularly between Hamas and Fatah. 

Erdogan pointed to the fact that Hamas had won the parliamentary 
election of January 2006. Actually Hamas won 76 of 132 seats, while 
Fatah only got 43.2 

Erdogan explained, “We are talking about democracy. So if we 
would like to see democracy take root, then we must respect first of all the 

Page 24 


people who have received the votes of the people of the country they are 
running in.” 

“So we may not like them, but we have to respect the process,” he 
emphasized. 

Instead, Israel arrested several of Hamas government ministers and 
members of Parliament and put them in prison. Erdogan described how in 
the middle of December 2008, he had asked Prime Minister Olmert, as a 
gesture of good will, to release these prisoners, along with the Palestinian 
women and children they had in Israeli prisons. Olmert told Erdogan that 
he would talk to his colleagues in Israel and respond the next day. No 
response was forthcoming. Four days later Israel started the war on Gaza. 

Erdogan expressed his conviction that the UN should be taking the 
lead in working to solve the Palestinian crisis and that he was hopeful that 
the new U.S. administration would put its weight behind a solution. 

“There’s got to be a new opening and Hamas must be considered in 
the process,” Erdogan proposed. He offered Turkey’s help in the process. 

Part II. – Occupation Breeds Resistance 

Next the moderator asked Amr Moussa to speak to the question of 
how to achieve unity among the Palestinians, and what he felt the new 

U.S. administration could do to help the situation. 
Moussa said there must be a recognition that Israel’s assault on Gaza 
“was not just a reaction for some rockets being launched against Southern 
Israel.” This situation in Gaza and in the rest of the Palestinian territory is 
a problem of a foreign military occupation, he explained. 

“The siege, the blockade of Gaza,” Moussa maintained, “is a very 
severe situation.” He argued that “you cannot ask people in Gaza living in 
starvation and hunger because of the blockad … to be calm and ask them 
why do you throw stones against your occupiers?” “This,” Moussa said, 
“is against the nature of people. You strangle them, you starve them and 
then you ask them to be quiet?” 

He went on to refer to Israel’s claim that the smuggling into Gaza 
must be stopped. Moussa said, “You strangle them, not a single window 
of opportunity, and then you talk to them about illicit trade?” 

Instead, “If you want to prevent this, you have to open the crossing 
points,” Moussa explained. “You have to give them food, you have to give 

Page 25 


them water, to give them medicine.” 

He added that the “Palestinians had believed the call for them to 
practice democracy, to have an election.” 

But then he described how when, “Hamas won, and half an hour, 
twenty-five minutes after the announcement of the results of the election, 
Hamas was served notice that aid would be suspended and then came the 
blockade.” 

“It is not a question of Israel reacting to some rockets,” Moussa 
emphasized, “it is much deeper than that, it is an action of occupation, it 
is an action of blockade, then a reaction of resistance, then the reaction of 
destruction carried out by Israel.” 

Moussa also referred to Israel’s failure to respond to the Arab 
initiative. 

In 2002, the Arab nations decided at a Summit that they were ready, 
at their highest levels, to agree to peace with Israel. They proposed to 
recognize Israel and carry out any agreements signed with Israel in 
exchange for the creation of a Palestinian State with borders similar to 
those before 1967. But in the seven years that transpired after the offer of 
the initiative, Israel failed to respond in any authorized way to the 
authorized message from the Arab summit. 

Referring to Ban Ki-moon’s brief presentation to the panel, Moussa 
said there are three or four things that need to be done now. He listed these 
as a cease fire, opening of the crossings, stopping illicit traffic and the 
reconciliation between the Palestinians. 

Moussa also said he had another point to make. But the moderator 
cut him off, before he could explain. 

Unfortunately, instead of providing for a similar short period for the 
Israeli president to make his comments, the moderator allowed Peres to 
speak for twice the time he had given to each of the two previous speakers. 
When Erdogan asked for time to respond to Peres, however, Ignatius told 
him there was no time. This led Erdogan to leave the panel in protest. 

The issues raised by these two talks were a significant statement of 
what is needed to deal with the crisis facing the Palestinians in Gaza. 

Part III. – Principles for UN Actions in Palestinian Crisis 

Page 26 


Had there been time for discussion in the panel held at Davos, it 
would have been helpful to put this discussion in the context of a United 
Nations General Assembly document presented in January 2008.3 

This document is a report by the Human Rights Rapporteur John 
Dugard, discussing what he believes to be the law governing the United 
Nations participation in the Palestinian situation. 

Dugard refers to the problem represented by the Quartet, comprised 
of the European Union, Russia, United Nations, and United States which 
was established in 2002 to facilitate the Middle-East Peace Process 
negotiations. and the UN’s participation in it, with the Secretary-General 
representing the UN. 

Dugard explains how on July 20, 2004 the General Assembly 
adopted resolution ES-10/15. This resolution called on Israel to comply 
with the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice issued by 
the court titled the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in 
the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”4 

The International Court of Justice is the judicial organ of the United 
Nations. It is, according to Dugard “now part of the law of the United Nations.” 
In addition the General Assembly by a large majority gave its 
approval to the decision. As such the Advisory Opinion is one of the 
authoritative statements of the applicable international law relating to the 
framework for peace in the Middle East. 

While this law isn’t binding on three of the Quartet members, the 
U.S., Russia, or the EU (though the Russians and the EU members did 
vote in favor of the UN resolution approving the advisory opinion), the 
UN as a member of the Quartet is bound by the Advisory Opinion. As a 
representative of the UN, the Secretary-General, Dugard argues, is by law 
obliged to uphold the principles of the Advisory Opinion in his participation 
in the Quartet. 

The Secretary-General or his representative is by law obliged to be 
guided by the Opinion and to endeavor in good faith to do his or her best 
to ensure compliance with the opinion. 

In his statement about what is happening in the Palestinian situation, 
Dugard points to the fact that Palestine is an occupied territory and that 
Israel has obligations regarding its treatment of the Palestinians. 

Dugard argues that the root cause of the violence in the Israeli-

Page 27 


Palestinian context is the occupation, not any act of Hamas or others. 

He notes that the right of the Palestinian people for self-determination 
is in general recognized. But such a recognition “should not take the 
form of support – political, economic or military – for one [Palestinian] 
faction at the expense of the other.” 

A critical factor in the Palestinian situation is the need for reconciliation 
between the two major Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, Dugard 
maintains. The Quartet explains Dugard, instead “pursues a divisive policy 
of preferring one faction over the other, of speaking to one faction but not 
to the other; of dealing with one faction while isolating the other.” 

In negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, what 
was being done was a negotiation among unequal partners. The problem 
with this is that it doesn’t make it possible to have the negotiations reflect 
a normative framework. 

As the UN draft resolution A/HRC/7/17 of Dugard’s report states: 
“In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur negotiations should take place 
within a normative framework, with the guiding norms to be found in 
international law, particularly international humanitarian law and human 
rights law, and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice 
and Security Council resolutions.” 

“Negotiations on issues such as boundaries, settlements, East 
Jerusalem, the return of refugees and the isolation of Gaza should be 
informed by such norms and not by political horse-trading,” Dugard’s 
report advises. 

The experience of the negotiations that led to a democratic South 
Africa in the mid 1990s is offered as an example in Dugard’s report, as it 
places the efforts toward a solution to the problem within a framework of 
accepted democratic principles, and international law (with special 
reference to human rights law). 

Part IV – Need for Normative Framework 

What the presentations by Erdogan and Moussa at the World 
Economic Forum and the UN report document by Dugard have in 
common is that they look for the underlying principles that are needed to 
guide efforts to settle the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. 

These principles are based on the obligations under international law, 

Page 28 


established and accepted by most of the international community via its 
support for the Advisory Opinion. The Palestinians are in a situation 
where they suffer from Israeli occupation. 

These principles include: 
1) Recognizing the Palestinian right to resist occupation. 
2) Treating the Palestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas with equality so 
as to encourage unity. 
3) Letting Israel know that it has the obligation to negotiate with the 
Palestinians in a way that is conducive to recognizing and implementing 
the principles of international law, not in a way that treats the Palestinians 
as less than equals. 
4) That the UN uphold the principles of international law. 

A particular example of the need to apply these principles is raised 
by Dugard’s report when it discusses the role the UN Secretary-General 
has played in the Quartet. The U.S., the EU, Russia and the UN (represented 
by the Secretary-General) are part of the Quartet which is supposedly 
providing a framework for peace negotiations between Israel and 
Palestine. 

The problem Dugard observes is that the Quartet does not recognize 
the principles of the Advisory Decision. While this is a course of action 
that can be taken by the U.S., the EU or Russia, it is not appropriate for the 
Secretary-General acting on behalf of the UN to discard these principles. 
Dugard’s report proposes that the Secretary-General is “in law obliged to 
be guided by the Opinion and to endeavor in good faith to do his or her 
best to ensure compliance” with it. In this context he proposes that it is 
necessary for the Secretary-General to either withdraw from the Quartet 
or to explain “why he is unable to do so and how he justifies remaining in 
the Quartet in the light of its refusal to be guided by the law of the United 
Nations.” 

Unless international law becomes the framework under which the 
international community, including the UN’s Secretary-General, operates 
to work toward a solution to the Gaza crisis, there seems no way to end the 
devastation that the Israeli government believes it has the right to inflict 
on the Palestinians. 

The recent panel at Davos on the crisis in Gaza demonstrated that 
there are nations like Turkey and international representatives like the 

Page 29 


Secretary-General of the Arab League willing to explain to the world the 
principles needed to guide the efforts for a peaceful solution. It is 
imperative that there be serious discussion around the world about these 
principles and also efforts to hold the UN and other international and 
national entities accountable for the implementation of these principles. 

Notes: 

1. A webcast of the session is online at: Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR4zRb Py2kY. 
For a partial transcript: 
https://wewritewhatwelike.com/2009/01/31/transcripts-of-erdogan-moussa-peres-anderdogan-
again-at-davos/. 

2. Scott Wilson, “Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in 
Mideast,” The Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2006; Page A01. Available at: 
.https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/01/27/hamas-sweeps-palestinianelections-
complicating-peace-efforts-in-mideast/8a4a4412-5f9b-4583-860751c7dd3781f4/. 
3. General Assembly Draft Resolution A/HRC/7/17 21 January 2008, Human Rights 
Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories. Report of the Special 
Rapporteur on the Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 
1967, John Dugard. Available at: 
https://www.rightdocs.org/doc /a-hrc-7-17/. 
4. Advisory opinion requested by General Assembly on Dec. 8, 2003 from International 
Court of Justice regarding legal consequences of construction of the wall built by Israel 
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Issued July 9, 2004. https://www.icj-cij.org 
case/131. 
Among the advisory opinion’s principle findings were: 
1) Palestinian people have the right to self determination. 
2) Israel is under a legal obligation to comply with 4th Geneva Convention in Occupied 
Palestinian Territories 
3) Israel is bound by international human rights conventions in the Occupied Palestinian 
Territories. 
[Editor’s Note: From September 2008 to September 2009, H.E. Father Miguel d!Escoto 
Brockmann, M.M. was the President of the 63rd session of the United Nations General 
Assembly. On September 14, 2009 he finished his term and made a Farewell Speech. 
This is a shortened version of his remarks concerning the issues considered by the 63rd 
Session. His whole Farewell Speech can be seen at: https://www.voltairenet.org 
article162248.html.] 

Page 30 


(2009) 

In the Shadow of Deep Crises

by Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann 
President of the 63rd Session of the 
UN General Assembly 

Dear Brothers and Sisters, 

Tempus fugit, the Romans used to say, and they were right. Time 
flies: it is running out for us. And as time passes us by, so too do the 
opportunities for us to do what we must to ensure a fitting future for the 
coming generations … . 

One year ago, from this very rostrum, I shared with you the vision 
of what I hoped to achieve during my year in this high office, to which 
you, with such trust and affection, had elected me. Now the time has come 
to take stock … . 

Palestine: A Scandal that has Caused Me Much Sorrow 

My greatest frustration this year has been the Palestine situation. The 
Question of Palstine continues to be the most serious and prolonged 
unresolved political and human rights issue on the agenda of the United 
Nations since its inception. The evident lack of commitment for resolving 
it is a scandal that has caused me much sorrow. 

I promised a proactive 
Presidency, and sincerelybelieve 
that I did everything I possibly 
could in this regard, requesting 
and attempting to persuade those 
who should have been most 
closely involved to call for the 

©2009 Ronda Hauben convocation of the General As-Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann (far left) with 

reporters and staff at the UN 

sembly to consider the Palestine 
situation. However, whether at 


the time of the three-week invasion of Gaza that began on 27 December 
or now, all I received was advice to give the process more time, because 
things were always on the point of being resolved and we should do 
nothing that could endanger the success that was always just beyond our 

Page 31 


reach. [Father Brockmann is here and below likely referring to the 
Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations representing 
the Palestinian Authority.] 

Faced with this situation, I sincerely did not know what to do. I 
wanted to help Palestine, but those who should supposedly have been most 
interested denied their support for reasons of “caution” that I was 
incapable of understanding. I hope that they were right and that I was 
wrong. Otherwise, we face an ugly situation of constant complicity with 
the aggression against the rights of the noble and long-suffering Palestinian 
people. 

A just resolution of the Question of Palestine must be based on the 
content of international law, and will only be attained when the unity of 
the Palestinian people has been achieved and the international community 
speaks with all its representatives who enjoy credibility and have been 
democratically elected. In addition to the withdrawal of the Israelis from 
all territories illegally occupied since 1967, international law demands that 
all Palestinians displaced during the creation of the State of Israel, their 
children and grandchildren, be permitted to return to their homeland of 
Palestine. 

My chief consultant on humanitarian affairs, Dr. Kevin Cahill, was 
sent to Gaza from 17 to 22 February to prepare a report on the humanitarian 
situation in Gaza immediately after the aggression. Dr. Cahill’s report 
was issued on Wednesday 19 August, on the occasion of World Humanitarian 
Day commemorating the sacrifices of United Nations staff in 
conflict zones; it had originally been intended for release at a Special 
Session on Gaza, but that did not take place for the reasons mentioned. 

I find disgraceful the passivity and apparent indifference of some 
highly influential members of the Security Council to the fact that the 
blockade of Gaza has continued uninterrupted for two years, in flagrant 
violation of international law and of the resolution of the Security Council 
itself, causing immense damage and suffering to the Palestinian population 
of Gaza. This situation threatens to become even more serious if immediate 
measures are not taken, now that winter is approaching. Now is the 
time to demonstrate, with actions and not simply words, a true commitment 
to the concept of the Responsibility to Protect. 

Page 32 


Main Lesson or Perception 

It would be inappropriate for me to leave without sharing with you 
what I feel is the main lesson or perception I have gained during this year 
of work, dedication and total commitment to the cause of peace through 
the democratization of the United Nations; the revitalization of the 
General Assembly; the complete abolition of nuclear weapons by the year 
2020, the 75th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki; the eradication of poverty and hunger, which this year 
passed the psychological barrier of a billion people suffering hunger 
throughout the world; the taking of measures to ensure the availability of 
clean water and food for all; the promotion of effective policies for dealing 
with climate change; putting an end to the crime of human trafficking, as 
well as to the disgrace of the ill treatment of and discrimination against 
women; guaranteeing the right to education for children and youths, 
including that of girls and boys in situations of armed combat or humanitarian 
disasters caused by natural phenomena; as well as guaranteeing 
universal access to health, which is an ethical and religious imperative. 

In all these endeavours, the ongoing counsel of Brother David 
Andrews of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, as well as of Maude 
Barlow, Mohamed Bedjaoui, Byron Blake, Leonardo Boff, Noam 
Chomsky, RamseyClark, Michael Clark, Kevin Cahill, Aldo Diaz Lacayo, 
François Houtart, Michael Kennedy, Francisco Lacayo Parajón, Carlos 
Emilio López, Paul Oquist, Nuripan Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Oscar-René 
Vargas, was of great use to this Presidency, which we intended to be a 
team effort from the beginning. However, clearly, our greatest gratitude 
is to God, our Lord, for having allowed us to contribute in some small way 
to the cause of world peace. 

During this year, there was much talk of the need to reform the 
United Nations and to do everything possible to improve its image, 
credibility and effectiveness. According to data from the latest poll by the 
Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes project, carried out in 24 nations 
and the Palestinian Territories, there has been a noticeable improvement 
in the perception of the United Nations. This gives us happiness, but not 
satisfaction. Much remains to be done if the United Nations is to become 
worthy of the prestige, trust and credibility it needs to carry out its mission 
effectively, a mission that is so important in today’s troubled world. 

Page 33 


It is said that the League of Nations failed because those who 
sponsored it lacked the power or will needed to make it a reality. I believe 
that something similar can be said of the United Nations. I am one of those 
who believe that the United Nations has the potential as an organization 
to be indispensable to humanity’s efforts to survive the crises converging 
to threaten its extinction. The main problem, without a doubt, is that not 
all its founders really believed, or believe even today, in the vision or 
principles explicit and implicit in its underlying Charter. 

I believe that it is not far-fetched to note that the whole world knows 
that, among many other truths, some of our most powerful and influential 
Member States definitely do not believe in the rule of law in international 
relations and are of the view, moreover, that complying with the legal 
norms to which we formally commit, when signing the Charter, is 
something that applies only to weak countries. With such a low level of 
commitment, it should not be surprising that the United Nations has been 
unable to achieve the main objectives for which it was created. 

Certain Member States think that they can act according to the law 
of the jungle, and defend the right of the strongest to do whatever they feel 
like with total and absolute impunity, and remain accountable to no one. 
They think nothing of railing against multilateralism, proclaiming the 
virtues of unilateralism while simultaneously pontificating unashamedly 
from their privileged seats on the Security Council about the need for all 
Member States conscientiously to fulfill their obligations under the 
Charter, or be sanctioned (selectively of course) for failing to do so. The 
sovereign equality of all Member States and the obligation to prevent wars 
are, for them, minor details that need not be taken very seriously. 

All of this, and many other equally serious anomalies, is what has 
brought many to believe in the urgency of the need to reform the United 
Nations. But during this year as President of the General Assembly, I have 
come to the conclusion that the time has already passed for reforming or 
mending our Organization. What we need to do is to reinvent it, and we 
need urgently to do it ad majorem gloriam Dei, which is to say, for the 
good of the Earth and of humanity. 

In the 64 years since the creation of the United Nations, there have 
been many scientific advances and development in the ethical consciousness 
of mankind that allow us to clarify the main elements of this other 

Page 34 


world, possible and indispensable for our survival, and to proceed on that 
basis to the drafting of a proposed Declaration on the Common Good of 
the Earth and Humanity. Once the consensus of Member States has been 
obtained on this Declaration, this shared vision will have to be converted 
into a draft for a new Charter of the United Nations, one that is attuned to 
the needs and knowledge of the twenty-first century … . 

Tempus fugit. Time is running out. In Copenhagen [at the 2009 
United Nations Climate Change Conference] we will have the opportunity 
to show that we understand well what that means and that we are 
determined to do what is needed to defend life. 

Thank you. 

[Editor’s Note: In 2004, the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided that Israeli 
settlements on occupied Palestinian land were against international law. But the 
settlement activity continued. In 2009, the Security Council addressed the settlement 
question again and also in 2011. The following article documenting the U.S. veto first 
appeared on taz.de on February 28, 2011 at: https://blogs.taz.de/no_settlements 
_130_cosponsors/. (No longer available.)] 

(2011) 

130 Nations Co-sponsor SecurityCouncil Resolution Condemning IsraeliSettlements 

by Ronda Hauben 

It was Friday afternoon, February 18, 2011 at the UN Security 
Council stakeout shortly before 3 p.m. Watching Ambassadors and their 
staff members coming down the stairs at the UN leading to the Security 
Council, one had the sense something significant was happening. Not only 
did the crowd arriving include Ambassadors from the 15 nations on the 
Security Council, but a large number of Ambassadors of nations not 
currently on the Security Council, along with other members of their 
delegations, hurried into the Security Council chambers. 

Page 35 


This was not a usual situation for the Security Council. Clearly more 
than a few nations judged that the meeting would be important. The 
Security Council was to vote on a draft Resolution condemning Israeli 
settlements being built on Palestinian land occupied by Israel. This 
meeting was also unusual in that 130 member nations had agreed in 
advance to co-sponsor the draft Resolution. To have such a large number 
of nations sponsoring a Security Council resolution was rare. 

Israeli settlement activity had been formally declared illegal in the 
2004 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the court charged 
with determining legal disputes that is connected with the United Nations.1 

Also this was to be the first Security Council resolution on the 
Palestine Question to be brought up during the U.S. Presidency of Barack 
Obama. President Obama had put on record that his administration 
opposed Israeli settlement activity. 

Though the meeting had originally been set for 3 pm, the many 
Ambassadors who had come for the meeting stood around talking for 
almost an hour. The reason for the delay was not evident. Only several 
days later did I learn the reason for the hour long postponement of the 
formal meeting. 

The original draft Resolution had been prepared several weeks 
earlier. One hundred and thirty nations were listed as co-sponsors of the 
original draft Resolution S/2011/24.2 Only a few days before the meeting 
to vote was to be held, however, the UN Secretariat for Security Council 
Affairs informed the SC Presidency that co-sponsors could only be listed 
on the resolution if they first applied to participate under Rule 37 of the 
Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council. Only then would 
it be possible for a UN member who was not a member of the Security 
Council to co-sponsor a resolution under Rule 38 of the Provisional Rules 
of Procedure. 

This interpretation of the Rules was only brought to the attention of 
the Security Council Presidency a few days before the vote was to take 
place. In this short period of time, only 80 of the 130 co-sponsors were 
able to be listed as official co-sponsors of the draft Resolution. These 
circumstances leave the question why the UN Secretariat for Security 
Council Affairs did not bring these requirements to the attention of the 
Brazilian presidency sooner since the draft Resolution had been available 

Page 36 


for several weeks before it was to be voted on. 

At last at 3:57 p.m. the formal meeting began.3 

The Brazilian Ambassador to the UN acting as the President of the 
Security Council for February, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, opened the 
meeting. To introduce the draft Resolution, Nawaf Salam, the Lebanese 
Ambassador to the UN, spoke. He explained how the International Court 
of Justice (ICJ) had declared settlements illegal in its 2004 advisory 
opinion on the separation wall. He quoted from the decision: 

(T)he Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territory 

(including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of 

international law. (See: A/ES-10/273, para 120.) 

Under paragraph 6 of article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention an 
occupying power is forbidden from altering a territory it is occupying or 
from seizing any of the occupied peoples’ land or possessions. Hence all 
settlement activity in occupied Palestinian territory is illegal, including 
newly planned settlements. 

The Lebanese Ambassador also referred to prior Security Council 
resolutions such as SCR 446 (1979) declaring Israeli settlements in 
occupied Palestinian land illegal, and to other agreements like the Road 
Map which required that Israel freeze its settlement activity. Also, the 
Lebanese Ambassador referred to the large number of nations sponsoring 
this draft Resolution, a number he said was “unprecedented.” 

Ambassador Viotti, the Brazilian Security Council President called 
for a vote on the draft Resolution. 

Those watching the meeting live on UN TV waited to learn how the 

U.S. would vote. There were 14 votes in favor of the Resolution.4 One 
vote, that of the U.S., a permanent member of the Security Council, was 
cast against the Resolution. 
Ambassador Viotti explained that, “The draft Resolution has not 
been adopted, owing to a negative vote of a permanent member of the 
Council.” 

After the vote, the U.S. Ambassador, Susan Rice, explained the 
reason for her veto. She said that a Security Council resolution condemning 
settlements would prevent Israel from negotiating with the Palestinians. 
Passing the draft Resolution would only lead to more settlements, she 
warned. The Security Council was not the place to take up this problem, 

Page 37 


according to Ambassador Rice. 

Speaking in favor of its vote supporting the draft Resolution, was the 
United Kingdom’s Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant. His statement was also 
made on behalf of France and Germany, both of which had voted in favor 
of the draft Resolution. 

Speaking next, Vitaly Churkin, Ambassador for the Russian 
Federation, explained why he had voted in favor of the draft Resolution. 
He said that Israel’s settlement activity was unilateral activity that 
prejudged final status issues and thus made the possibility of a negotiated 
settlement between Palestine and Israel ever more difficult. Also 
Ambassador Churkin referred to the importance of the Security Council 
mission he had proposed to the Middle East to contribute to advancing the 
peace process. 

Baso Sangquo, the South African Ambassador to the UN expressed 
his regret that the draft Resolution had not been approved. He said that 
Israel must abide by its international obligations in order to be negotiating 
in good faith in the peace process and thus the continuing settlement 
activity by Israel undermined peace efforts. 

In her statement about why she had voted in favor of the draft 
Resolution, the Brazilian Ambassador said that “the peaceful resolution of 
the Question of Palestine is arguably the single-most important objective 
for peace and stability in the world.” She saw the continuing expansion of 
settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territory as the most important 
obstacle to a solution to the question. “It is therefore only natural that the 
Security Council deals with this issue in a manner consistent with its 
primary responsibility for international peace and security.” Therefore 
Ambassador Viotti expressed the importance of welcoming the international 
community, including the Security Council to be involved in the 
matter. 

Explaining three of the reasons why Brazil had co-sponsored the 
draft Resolution, she said that first, “the continued disregard for international 
obligations relating to settlement construction poses a threat to 
peace and security in the region.” Second, halting settlement activity 
should not be regarded as a concession, but as “lawful conduct under 
international law. The third reason she gave was that “unilateral action” 
shall not prevail.” “(I)nternational law is always in the interest of peace. 

Page 38 


The Security Council cannot settle for less.” Ambassador Viotti said that 
the inclusion of more countries in the peace process “would bring fresh air 
into the peace process.” 

Statements in favor of the draft Resolution were also presented by 
Portugal’s Ambassador, Jose Filipe Moraes Cabral, by Li Baodong, 
China’s Ambassador, Columbia’s Ambassador Nestor Osorio, Mirsada 
Colakovic, the Ambassador for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Raff Bukun-olu 
Wole Onemola, the Nigerian Ambassador, India’s Ambassador, Manjeev 
Singh Puri, and Gabon’s Ambassador Alfred Alexis Moungara Moussotsi. 

Riyad Mansour, the representative for the Permanent Observer for 
Palestine and Meron Reuben for Israel also spoke. 

Ambassador Mansour thanked all those who had helped to bring the 
draft to a vote in the Security Council. He said that the resolution 
represented an effort to remove an obstacle to the peace process. “The 
proper message that the Council should have sent to Israel was that its 
contempt for international law and the international community would no 
longer be tolerated.” He worried that the failure of the Security Council to 
approve the resolution would lead to “more Israeli intransigence and 
impunity.” 

The Israeli Ambassador said that only direct negotiations between 
Israel and Palestine could resolve the conflict between them. 

The meeting ended at 5:02 p.m. As the Ambassadors filed out of the 
Security Council there was little comment to journalists. Only the 
Lebanese Ambassador and the Palestinian Ambassador stayed to speak at 
the stakeout. 

At the stakeout after the Security Council meeting, Riyad Mansour, 
the representative for the Permanent Observer for Palestine, was asked if 
the Palestinian Authority (PA) would now take the issue of the Israeli 
settlements to the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace 
Resolution.5 Such a resolution provides for the General Assembly to act 
on an issue when the Security Council is prevented from acting due to a 
veto by one of its permanent members. He responded that this would be 
one of the alternatives considered by the PA in determining what would 
be their next step. 

Lebanon’s Ambassador Salam stressed that the draft Resolution was 
only restating what was declared illegal activity by Israel under interna-

Page 39 


tional law, namely the Geneva Conventions, and the decision by the 
International Court of Justice.6 

What is striking about the meeting was that such overwhelming 
support was demonstrated by members of the UN for an action attempted 
by the Security Council. The use of the veto by the U.S. Ambassador to 
prevent the draft Resolution against Israeli settlement activity from being 
adopted, demonstrated the failure of the Security Council to be able to 
support or enforce international law. The U.S. Ambassador said by her 
vote that it was necessary to support Israel’s breach of international law 
with its continuing confiscation of Palestinian land in violation of Israel’s 
obligation as an occupying power. The meeting demonstrated the stark 
contradiction between the obligations of international law as documented 
in the decision of the ICJ condemning any settlement activity on the part 
of Israel in the Occupied Territory of Palestine and the fact that a veto in 
the Security Council can be used by a single member nation like the U.S. 
to protect itself or another member nation in its violation of international 
law. 

The ICJ decision speaks not only to the violation of international law 
in the case of Israeli actions in Palestinian Occupied Territory. It also 
refers to the obligation of other nations to uphold international law on this 
issue. 

At a time when the issue of reform of the Security Council is on the 
agenda of the UN the flaw in the creation of the Security Council 
represented by the veto power of the five permanent members stands out 
prominently as a power badly in need of oversight. 

Articles describing the PA’s reaction to the February 18 Security 
Council meeting explain how the U.S. veto delegitimizes any illusion that 
the U.S. is able to play a role as an honest broker in negotiations between 
Israel and Palestine.7 There are also reports that the PA recognizes the 
need to turn from relying on bilateral negotiations between Israel and 
Palestine to solve the problem and instead to turn to the international 
community for the support needed to find a solution. 

The main message of the Security Council meeting of February 18 
is that there is overwhelming support for the condemnation of Israel’s 
failure to adhere to international law in its settlement activity. Similarly, 
the meeting demonstrated that it is an abuse of U.S. obligations as a 

Page 40 


member of the Security Council to protect Israel from the condemnation 
of its obligations under international law. 

Notes: 
1.International Court of Justice, “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in 
Occupied Palestinian Territory,” Advisory Opinion July 9, 2004. https://en.wikipedia 
.org/wiki /United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377. 
2.Draft Resolution S/2011/24 February 17, 2011. 


3. UN Security Council Meeting, Friday, February 18, 2011, S/PV.6484, Transcript of 
meeting. 
4. Security Council Meeting, 18 February 2011. “The situation in the Middle East, 
including the Palestinian question.” 
5. Riyad H. Mansour, Palestinian Observer, Security Council Media Stakeout, 18 
February 2011. Informal comments to the media by H.E. Mr. Riyad H. Mansour, 
Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, on the situation in the Middle 
East including the Palestinian question. 
6. Nawaf Salam, Lebanon, Security Council Media Stakeout, 18 February 2011. Informal 
comments to the media by H.E. Mr. Nawaf Salam, Permanent Representative of Lebanon 
to the United Nations, on the situation in the Middle East including the Palestinian 
question. 
7. See: for example, Saud Abu Ramadan, “U.S. Veto on anti-Jewish settlement resolution 
outrages Palestinians,” Xinhua, 2-19-2011. 
[Editor’s Note: The following article first appeared on January 30, 2018 on the 
netizenblog at: https://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2018 /01/30/rapporteur-questions-legality/. 
(No longer available.)] 

(2018) 

UN Rapporteur Michael Lynk QuestionsLegality of Israeli Occupation

by Ronda Hauben 

In 2016, the UN Human Rights Council appointed S. Michael Lynk, 
a law professor at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada, as the 
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian 
Territories Occupied since 1967. 

Page 41 


In October 2017, Lynk issued his first Report to the UN. This report 
raises a fundamental question about the nature of the Israeli occupation of 
Palestine. That question is: 

Whether Israel’s role as occupiant of Palestinian territory has 

now reached the point of illegality under international law? 

The Report establishes the criteria for the legality of an occupation 
under international law. Then it uses as precedent the International Court 
of Justice case regarding South Africa’s occupation of Namibia. In that 
case, the International Court of Justice decided that South Africa did not 
satisfy the requirements for the occupation to be a legal occupation. As a 
result of that judgment, the international community was obligated to 
pressure South Africa to cease its occupation. 

Lynk’s criteria for a legal occupation are the satisfaction of four 
requirements. They are: 

1. There is an absolute prohibition against annexation of any of the 
occupied territory. 
2. The length of the occupation must be finite, meaning it must be ended 
in a reasonable period of time. 
3. It must be carried out in good faith. 
4. It must be carried out in a way that meets the best interests of the 
occupied. 
Stated more formally, these principles are: 

1. The Belligerent Occupier Cannot Annex Anyof the Occupied Territory. 
2. The Belligerent Occupation Must Be Temporary, and Cannot Be Either 
Permanent or Indefinite. 
3. The Belligerent Occupation Must Be Carried Out in a Way to satisfy 
that it serves the best interests of the Occupied. 
4. The Belligerent Occupier must administer the occupied territoryin good 
faith including acting in full compliance with its duties and obligations 
under international law and as a member of the United Nations. 
A year later, in his second Report, the Rapporteur takes up to 
demonstrate that Israel fails to satisfy all four of these requirements. 

For example, Lynk proposes that the “extraordinary duration” of 
Israel’s occupation of Palestine would be enough to place Israel in 
violation of this critical element for legality of occupation, especially as 
no persuasive justification has been provided for the excessive longevity 

Page 42 


of the occupation. 

In his Report, the Rapporteur makes the case documenting how the 
role of Israel as Occupier in the Palestinian territories “had crossed a red 
line” and that there is a need to free the Palestinian people from this illegal 
occupation. 

In his conclusion, Lynk makes recommendations including:1 
… that the Government of Israel bring a complete end to the 
50 years of occupation of the Palestinian territories in as 
expeditious a time period as possible, under international 
supervision. 
… that the United Nations General Assembly: 

a. Commission a United Nations study on the legality of 
Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territory; 
b. Consider the advantages of seeking an advisory opinion 
from the International Court of Justice on the question of the 
legality of the occupation; 
c. Consider commissioning a legal study on the ways and 
means that UN Member States can and must fulfill their 
obligations and duties to ensure respect for international law, 
including the duty of non-recognition, the duty to cooperate to 
bring to an end a wrongful situation and the duty to investigate 
and prosecute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions; 
d. Consider the adoption of a Uniting for Peace resolution2 
with respect to the Question of Palestine, in the event that there 
is a determination that Israel’s role as occupier is no longer 
lawful. 
Lynk explained several reasons why the determination would play 
a helpful role in this situation: 
First, it would encourage member states to take all reasonable 
steps to prevent or discourage national institutions, organizations 
and corporations within their jurisdiction from engaging 
in activities that would invest in, or sustain, the occupation. 
Second, it would encourage national and international courts 
to apply the appropriate laws within their jurisdiction that 
would prevent or discourage cooperation with entities that 
invest in, or sustain, the occupation. Third, it would invite the 

Page 43 


international community to review its various forms of co


operation with the occupying power as long as it continues to 

administer the occupation unlawfully. Fourth, it would provide 

a solid precedent for the international community when 

judging other occupations of long duration. Most of all, such 

a determination would confirm the moral importance of up


holding the international rule of law when aiding the besieged 

and the vulnerable. 

While Rapporteur reports only document, analyze and recommend, 
they can carry a moral force and they can alert the governments and 
peoples of the world to injustices and situations that need attention and 
action toward their resolution. Prof Lynk in his second Report helps direct 
attention to the possibility that the Israeli-Palestine dispute and conflict 
lacks a solution because it is not properly understood. There are many 
calls for a peaceful resolution and for talks between the Israeli and 
Palestinian leaders, but maybe those are not possible as long as Israel is 
mistakedly seen as a legitimate occupier of the Palestinian Territories. 

Notes: 

1. Quotes in this article are from the “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation 
of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,” GA, 2nd, 23/10/2017 
A/72/556. The Report is available online at: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access .nsfGet?Op 
en&DS=A/72/556&Lang=E. All the Special Rapporteur reports can be accessed from: 
https://ap.ohchrorgdouments/dpage_e .aspx?m=91. 
2. General Assembly resolution 377(V) is known as the Uniting for Peace resolution. 
Adopted in 1950, the resolution resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of 
unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility to act as 
required to maintain international peace and security … , the General Assembly shall 
consider the matter immediately with the view to making recommendations to Members 
… in order to restore international peace and security. 
[Editor’s Note: South African anti-apartheid activist and journalist, Dumisani Kumelo 
served as the Ambassador to the UN from South Africa for ten years, 1999 to 2009. There 
he played an active role concerning the Palestinian Question. The following article in his 
memory first appeared on January 23, 2019 on the netizenblog at: https://blogs.taz.de 
/netizenblog/2019/01/23/in-memory-of-dumisani-kumalo/. (No longer available.)] 

Page 44 


(2019) 

In Memory of Dumisani Kumalo, SouthAfrican Ambassador to the UN 

by Ronda Hauben 

My delegation believes that silence on the situation in the 

Middle East is more dangerous than even meetings where there 

might be a raising of temperatures or heat. 

Dumisani Kumalo 

It was with great sadness that I learned the news of the passing of 
Dumisani Kumalo on Sunday, January20, 2019. Ambassador Kumalo had 
been appointed by Nelson Mandela in 1999 to serve as South Africa’s UN 
Ambassador, which he did until February 2009. 

For me it was the end of an era when, ten years ago, Dumisani 
Kumalo left the UN. At that time, a farewell party held on the 4th floor in 
the Delegates Lounge, demonstrated why he was so special a figure at the 
UN. A number of delegates attended, some with their wives or husbands 
as well. 

In the brief speech he gave to his friends and colleagues who had 
come to say how much he would be missed, Kumalo described how as a 
child growing up in apartheid South Africa his father told him that help for 
the people of South Africa in their fight against apartheid would come 
from the UN – from the United Nations. Little did his father know, 
Kumalo said, that the young boy would become the Ambassador from 
South Africa at the United Nations. 

The significance of this memory, Kumalo explained, was that it was 
an example of the hope that many people around the world have in the 
UN. This is why it is so important, he said, that people at the UN strive to 
live up to that hope. 

What Ambassador Kumalo represented at the UN is something I 
have found rare among UN officials. He was someone with a vision of the 
UN being the champion of the people. Moreover, he was willing to struggle 
against those for whom the UN only meant power politics rather than 
the fight for a better world. 

Page 45 


One of my most memorable experiences at the UN was in early 
January 2007 when Kumalo stepped down as the head of the G77 and 
China. He was practically in tears as he recounted how during the South 
African presidency of the G77 and China, there had been a series of 
struggles against the U.S. Ambassador John Bolton’s view of how to 
restructure the UN. The G77 fought for a multilateral UN and won some 
important battles. 

Kumalo was then leaving but one scene of struggle, the G77, to enter 
another, a new set of battles. As the UN Ambassador for South Africa, he 
was beginning a two year term (January 2007 – December 2008) when 
South Africa became one of the ten elected members of the UN Security 
Council. I watched the first meeting of the newly constituted Security 
Council of 2007. I was surprised and delighted to see how several of the 
elected members (as opposed to the five permanent members) took up to 
outline the problems they saw with the Security Council and the need for 
change. 

When South Africa took over the rotating presidency of the Security 
Council for the month of March 2007, Kumalo made it clear he was there 
to answer questions from journalists, which he did diligently through the 
course of the month long presidency. Often during his term on the Security 
Council he shared his frustration when the Council failed to issue a needed 
statement or resolution. One such example, was when in January2008, the 
Council failed to express its support for Palestinians suffering because of 
Israel’s closure of the crossing points into Gaza. 

Another striking memory is of the South African and Indonesian 
Ambassadors’ speaking out in response to the British Ambassador’s 
proposal that the Security Council only have consultations which are 
closed meetings, rather than having open meetings on the issue of 
Palestine. The British Ambassador argued the differences among the 
Ambassadors led to sharp exchanges. Kumalo disagreed,stating unequivocally 
that the disagreements made it ever more important to have open 
meetings as this was a subject of vital interest and importance to the 
public. 

There is a body of international law and decisions of the International 
Court of Justice (ICJ). This forms a framework of law to determine 
issues the Security Council is considering. During South Africa’s 2007


Page 46 


2008 term on the Security Council, several of the P-5 Ambassadors, 
especially the U.S. Ambassador, demonstrated little regard for this framework 
in determining the U.S. position on the issues before the Security 
Council. Kumalo’s position would in general be consistent with the tenets 
of international law and the ICJ legal decisions. 

For example, when Israel closed the crossing points to Gaza, the U.S. 
supported Israel in efforts at the Security Council, claiming that Israel’s 
action was acceptable given its right to defend itself in retaliation for 
rockets being fired into Southern Israel from Gaza. Kumalo and others on 
the Security Council condemned Israel’s actions as a form of collective 
punishment, forbidden under international law. Kumalo also argued that 
Israel as the occupying state had obligations to support and provide for the 
well being of the Palestinians under the provisions of international law. 

Kumalo supported the principles he argued were in line with 
international law. Often he would be criticized in South African newspapers 
for his actions. An example was his opposition to interference in the 
internal affairs of a sovereign country. When there was pressure in the 
Security Council to become involved with the vote for President in Zimbabwe, 
Kumalo argued this was not a proper issue for the Security Council 
to become involved with. He maintained that there were other UN organs 
that could be involved, not the Security Council. 

When Miriam McKeba died, the South African Mission to the UN 
held a program to honor her life and contributions. A number of delegates 
spoke describing the important role McKeba had played in the struggle for 
South African independence. Kumalo’s talk encouraged people to carry 
on her struggle and to dance to her music. 

At his farewell gathering at the UN in 2009, Ambassador Kumalo 
danced with his guests. His farewell presented the challenge to others to 
carry on the struggle that he had been such an important part of in his ten 
years of service as the Ambassador to the UN from South Africa. 

[Editor’s Note: The following article first appeared on February 1, 2019 on the 
netizenblog at: https://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog /2019/02/01/on-israels-annexation-ofpalestinian-
territory-michael-lynks-report/. (No longer available.)] 

Page 47 


(2019) 

On Israel’s Annexation of Palestinian 
Territory: Michael Lynk’s Report


by Ronda Hauben 

In 2017 Michael Lynk presented his first Report to the United Nations 
General Assembly. Lynk’s official title is the Special Rapporteur 
on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied 
Since 1967. The 2017 report analyzed the obligations of an occupying 
nation and what happens when the occupier fails to fulfill the requirements 
of a legitimate occupier.1 

Lynk’s report specified criteria for a legal occupation. They are 
the satisfaction of four requirements: 

1. There is an absolute prohibition against annexation of any of the occupied 
territory. 
2. The length of the occupation must be finite, meaning it must be 
ended in a reasonable period of time. 
3. It must be carried out in good faith. 
4. It must be carried out in a way that meets the best interests of the occupied. 
Lynk demonstrated that Israel has failed to meet the requirements 
of a legal occupation, and he called for several actions by the UN. 
Among these actions was that the General Assembly commission a UN 
study on the legality of Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian 
territory. 

He proposed that one of the reasons that it has not been possible 
to resolve the Palestinian – Israeli conflict is because Israel is mistakenly 
seen as the legitimate occupier of the Palestinian Territories. 

Lynk proposes that a more accurate understanding of the facts and 
how they apply given the principles of international law could help 
member states to act in accord with their obligations under International 
law, and it could help to clarify what actions are possible at the UN and 
the International Court of Justice. 

Lynk reported at a UN press briefing on Oct 24, 2018 that there 
has been considerable interest in his 2017 Report and that he had been 

Page 48 


invited to present the keynote at conferences discussing the issues it 
raises. 

Recently, Lynk presented a related report. Even though Israel will 
not allow him to visit the area he is to investigate, in this 2018 Report 
he documented conditions based on information he gathered by various 
means including correspondence, video conferences, and meetings held 
in Amman, Jordan. Among his conclusions is that Israel “has twice formally 
annexed occupied territory under its control: East Jerusalem 
(1967, 1980) and the Golan Heights (1981).”2 

Also, his 2018 report documents the deterioration of the Human 
Rights situation since his last report. And he described some of the 
gross ways that Israel has treated the Palestinians during the period 
since 2017. 

In the process of documenting some of the most urgent concerns 
he identified, he observed the continuing expansion and development of 
the settlements, and the proposal of legislation and actions by various 
officials which are aimed at formally annexing parts of the West Bank 
and other Palestinian Territory. 

Beyond his 2017 report, the 2018 report partly focused on an analysis 
of the issue of “the question of annexation, examining both the applicable 
legal framework as well as the current situation in the Occupied 
Palestinian Territories (OPT).” 

In modern international law, Lynk points out there is a general 
prohibition against annexation. Also Lynk documents several different 
ways that Israel has “entrenched its de facto annexation of the West 
Bank” toward “imposing intentionally-irreversible changes to occupied 
territory proscribed by international humanitarian law.” He refers specifically 
to the 230 settlements, to the 400,000 Israeli settlers, to the 
extension of Israeli laws to the West Bank, to the unequal access to resources, 
to a discriminatory legal regime, and to “explicit statements by 
a wide circle of senior Israeli political leaders calling for the formal annexation 
of parts or all of the West Bank.”3 

Lynk describes some of how the UN has helped stop some of the 
acts of annexation around the world since its founding. Particularly 
pointing to the principles of international law relating to occupation, 
Lynk writes, “Annexation is utterly incompatible with the foundational 

Page 49 


principles of the laws of occupation, which stipulates that the occupying 
power’s tenure is inherently temporary, not permanent or even indefinite, 
and that it must rule the territory as a trustee for the benefit of 
the protected population under occupation, and not for its own aggrandizement. 
Annexation is also profoundly in breach of the fundamental 
right to self-determination, an ‘erga omnes’ [statutory, applying to all] 
obligation under international law.”4 

In his 2018 report, Lynk documents a number of specific ways 
that Israel’s actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are effectively 
carrying out or have carried out an annexation of “a significant 
part of the West Bank and is treating this territory as its own.”5 

On pages 18 and 19 of his 2018 report, Lynk lists a series of recommendations 
for Israel and for the International Community. To Israel 
he recommends compliance with international standards and laws, and 
to the international community he recommends holding Israel to international 
standards, accountability and to the obligations of international 
humanitarian law. 

And Lynk recommends the international community “commission 
a United Nations study on the legality of Israel’s annexation and continued 
occupation of the Palestinian territory.” 

For two years in a row, Michael Lynk has issued reports that give 
a better understanding of the Israel-Palestine question which may help 
in the effort to find a just and lasting solution to this major outstanding 
question. 

Notes: 

1. “UN Rapporteur Michael Lynk Questions Legality of Israeli Occupation,” Ronda 
Hauben, January 30, 2018. [Reprinted in this issue.] 
2. See: p. 7, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx. 
3. See: pp. 7-8, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx. 
4. See: p. 8, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx. 
5. See: p. 18, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/NY/GA73/A_73 _45717.docx. 
Page 50 


The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not necessarily 
the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We welcome 
submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints. 

ELECTRONIC EDITION 
ACN Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ 


All Amateur Computerist issues from 1988 to the present are 
available at: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf 

EDITORIAL STAFF 

Ronda Hauben 

William Rohler 

Norman O. Thompson 

Michael Hauben (1973-2001) 

Jay Hauben 

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions. 

Articles can be submitted via e-mail: 

mailto:jrh29@columbia.edu 

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in a non profit publication 
provided credit is given, with name of author and source of article cited. 

Page 51