By Herb Keinon,
Jerusalem Post
07/27/2010

The problem with the new UN committee following up the findings of the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead is not its chairman, Christian Tomuschat, but that the committee has its mandate from the UN Human Rights Council, which is “tainted at its core,” former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler said Monday.

Cotler was responding to a Jerusalem Post report that Tomuschat’s objectivity was tainted: The German jurist was part of an international team of experts that prepared a legal brief for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 1996, and he wrote a study in 2002 that concluded that states were incapable of effectively conducting investigations into alleged excesses by their military forces.

Despite that study, Tomuschat was asked to head a panel mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to “monitor and assess any domestic, legal or other proceedings undertaken by both the government of Israel and the Palestinian side… including the independence, effectiveness, genuineness of these investigations and their conformity with international standards.”

Israel is increasingly concerned about the committee, set up last month and expected to issue its report in October, fearing that an unprecedented UN investigation into the effectiveness of both the Israeli civilian and military hierarchies could badly undermine the credibility of the Israeli judiciary internationally and have far-reaching ramifications.

Cotler said the issue was not the make-up of the committee, but that “The UN Human Rights Council is itself in need of reform, and instead of setting up more fact-finding missions which have one-sided mandates and are prejudicial, we need to reform the UN Human Rights Council.” Cotler was asked – but refused – to be a member of a Human Rights Council committee that investigated errant IDF shelling in Bet Hanoun that killed 19 Palestinians in 2006.

The Canadian jurist declined to say whether he thought Tomuschat should recuse himself as chairman of the new committee due to his previous writings. “If I say that he should recuse himself, I am saying that I believe that these fact-finding missions under the UN Human Rights Council have validity. I don’t.” The issue, Cotler said, is not the German law professor. “It’s not as if you replace him with someone else and therefore it is better. I know Professor Tomuschat. As far as I know he is a very good international lawyer. But that is not the point. The point is that the mandates from the Human Rights Council, whatever it establishes, are tainted at the core.”

Click here to read the entire article »

A battle for the hearts and minds of children in the Gaza Strip has broken out with competing summer camps.

Both the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the Islamic organization Hamas run camps for the region's children–but the activities are somewhat different.

The UN has a summer program that concentrates on games and sports for boys and girls. Catering to both sexes has brought charges that the camps are degenerate and corrupting Gaza's youth and resulted in two arson attacks.

The Hamas camps feature swimming and horseback riding as well as teaching Islam, involve military-style marching and carry an anti-Israeli message. As the major slogan for the summer camps this year, the Islamic movement chose the slogan, "Our Aqsa Mosque, Our prisoners, Freedom is pending."

"Each summer camp carries the name of a Hamas militant killed by the occupation, or the name of a village destroyed in Palestine in 1948 and the names of the prisoners," Ihab al-Eisawai, Hamas summer camp media officer, was quoted by the Xinhua news agency as saying.

"UN summer camps have affected our summer activities this year, because they attract the children by offering them entertaining games. Our camps are different; we carry out cultural, media, arts and technology activities, in addition to focusing on teaching them about the real Islam."

Click here to read the entire article »

Israel was the first victim but won’t be the last

By Asaf Romirowsky and Nicole Brackman

Since 2007, Israel has maintained a legal maritime blockade around Gaza. Gaza is a territory ruled by a known terrorist organization — Hamas — whose explicitly stated goal is the elimination of Israel through violence. Past experience has proven that Hamas keeps its promises of terror, cravenly using its own citizens as civilian shields in order to launch attacks on Israelis.

Preventing this terror has been a full-time occupation for Israel, and the goal of the maritime blockade has been the protection of Israeli citizens. Keeping rockets and other weapons out of the hands of Hamas, while simultaneously letting food and other humanitarian aid in, is a constant exercise in measured risk. World media outlets have bought into the widespread Palestinian propaganda that the Gaza blockade is a humanitarian crisis — going so far as to conflate the situation in Gaza with a “holocaust” and comparing the Israelis to “Nazis” for failing to allow basic human services to reach Gazans.

This inflammatory language does get attention. It also effectively masks the reality on the ground — the fact that it is Hamas itself which blocks humanitarian aid from reaching its citizens, diverting funds and materiel instead to building arms caches. In what has become a brilliant public relations ploy, the Hamas leadership has managed again to use its civilians to shield its true intentions and actions.

Nearly half a decade ago, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to disengage from that territory and create a chance for peace. Hamas (a recognized terror organization by both the United States and Israel) took advantage of internecine Palestinian fighting and took control of Gaza. The putative “government” of Gaza is not one which values human life (at least not that of its citizens, much less Israelis); the civilian infrastructure in Gaza Strip has been exploited by Hamas to launch attacks — inviting Israeli response (which is then condemned as targeting civilians). By using hospitals, mosques and offices of international aid groups to conduct terrorist activity against Israel, Hamas is swaying public opinion in its favour.

Hamas found a willing and able partner in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It was UNRWA’s director of operations in Gaza, John Ging, who was quoted in The New York Times in early 2009 as saying that Israel’s blockade was choking off basic humanitarian supplies like medicine, clothing and blankets, as well as food supplies. Moreover, it was Ging who called upon the international community “to shoulder its responsibility on this issue” by “sending ships to break the siege.”

Click here to read the entire article »

Israel is not above the law and not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. Israel's blockade of Gaza, together with Egypt, it should be recalled (though Egypt is never condemned in this regard), is probably not the wisest policy ever implemented by Israel. After the international outcry over the flotilla to Gaza that was poorly handled by the Israelis, and with tragic consequences, it is high time this policy was reviewed.

The issue, however, is not this or some other specific Israeli policy, but Israel-bashing, or the prejudicial way in which Israel is usually treated by the international community and the world media. Prejudice is recognised by its three constituent practices: it singles out the subject; it then applies a double standard; and, of course, the subject is always guilty. Israel is indeed singled out for special treatment and the double standard is also reflected in a specific vocabulary that is applied only to Israel.

The United Nations Human Rights Council condemned Israel's behavior in the flotilla incident and called for the formation of an international commission of inquiry. Surely the order should have been the reverse, an inquiry first and condemnation later, if and when justified by the investigation. The resolution was so obviously biased that the US and other democratic nations either voted against it or abstained. Since 2006 this council has adopted 40 condemnations of countries, of which 33 have focused on Israel. This is perverse. Israel is a country locked in conflict with some of its neighbours. It is not the epitome of evil on earth.

Click here to read the entire article »

The Canada-Israel Committee (CIC) today welcomed United Nations Security Council resolution 1929, imposing additional international sanctions against Iran.

"The Iranian government's drive towards nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to the stability of the Middle East and to the security of the State of Israel," said CIC national chair Moshe Ronen.

"We are particularly encouraged that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has signalled that Canada will use its presidency of the G-8 to maintain pressure on Iran, and we are hopeful that Canada will also consider implementing unilateral sanctions with like-minded countries," Ronen continued. "The sustained effort of the international community will be required if there is to be any chance of compelling Iran to honor its international obligations."

-30-

The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is a functional commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Every year, at this commission, representatives of 45 member states, international organizations, NGOs and civil society gather at the UN headquarters in New York to evaluate progress on gender equality, identify challenges, set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and the advancement of women worldwide.

During the past decade there has been a massive proliferation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) all over the world. They have gained more prominence in comparison with governmental institutions. Although NGOs are often identified as powerless groups, they have become powerful and influential, especially because of their open agendas, non-political views and advocacy.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was elected in April, 2010 to the CSW by acclamation. The number of seats on the commission is based on the number of countries in a region, no matter how small their populations or how slight their respect for human rights. As is standard in UN election practice, when the number of interested candidates is the same as the number of available seats, the slate of candidates is automatically endorsed. For the four-year term beginning in 2011, the Asia Group put forward two candidates – Iran and Thailand – for two available vacancies, meaning that Iran was virtually guaranteed a seat.

It is well known that the UN is a highly politicized organization. Blocks of countries that have the same religious persuasion or political orientation get together and secure an automatic majority.

In this case we have been witnessing in the last few weeks countries like Iran and Libya who are chronic violators of essential freedoms being elected to bodies such as the CSW and the HRC.

Iran’s treatment of women has frequently drawn harsh criticism from human rights advocacy groups and Western governments. How incongruous then that a country which consistently fails to uphold women’s rights was elected as a member of a UN body charged with advancing women's rights and women's empowerment.

“Putting fundamentalist Iran in charge of a women’s rights commission is like putting a pyromaniac as chief of the fire department,” said Hillel Neuer, director of the Geneva-based U.N. Watch. He added: “It’s an outrage, and completely unacceptable.”

Mrs Shirin Ebadi, the exiled Nobel Peace Prize laureate from Iran, an open advocate of women's rights in her country, mentioned that Iran has annulled laws passed during the regime of the Shah which supported women's rights. After the Iranian revolution the Ayatollahs gained power and wasted no time in doing what they know to do best: subdue women in the name of Islam.

Last week a senior Iranian Cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi declared that "Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes."

All logic not withstanding, Iran will be one of the players in the international arena of women's rights!

The second incredible case is that of Libya. With such an abysmal human rights record, Libya has won a seat on the HRC with 80% support! The HRC, which invariably targets Israel for human rights violations, has sadly shown once again how politicized it is when it comes to electing member countries to their council, countries with dictatorial regimes and countries which sponsor terrorism. In the long run the credibility of the HRC will decline, as happened with the previous HRC, which operated contrary to the hopes of its founders and had such a poor record in defending human rights that it had to be replaced by the present HRC… which turned out to be just as bad.

Libya is ranked not-free by Freedom House and was one of only 9 countries to receive the worst possible ranking for both political rights and civil liberties in 2009, qualifying as one of the world's most oppressive societies. Countries like Angola, Mauritania, Qatar and Malaysia share the same honorable list.

So, again, what can we expect from the HRC regarding future resolutions if in the past, without the participation of these countries, it adopted 32 resolutions specifically against Israel?

When referring to Israel's situation, I have mentioned in other articles that one of the goals that we have to aim for is that the huge population that keeps silent today will speak out and voice its opinions.

To conclude I would like to quote from an article written by Ms. Anne Bayefsky, Since when is Iran a Champion of Human Rights?, where she states the following:

"This is another example of just one more UN body created to do one thing and now doing the opposite for which American taxpayers foot 22% of the bill. And it will continue unless those with their hands on the spigot in Congress finally decide to turn off the tap".

In the past, women attending the CSW conference came with high hopes of gaining a platform to present their grievances and testimonies against those countries who are violators of women's rights. What chance do they have to do so today? What is the CSW going to do about these matters? Will countries like Iran take a resolute, strong standing against women being lapidated, lashed and murdered in honor killings? Don't bet on it!
 

On May 3rd 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference. As expected, Ahmadinejad denied Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism, instead launching a diatribe against Israel, the United States and their allies.

Canada did not attend Ahmadinejad’s address, while representatives of the United States, Britain, France, Hungary, New Zealand and the Netherlands walked out in protest of the Iranian President’s aggressive and inflammatory rhetoric.

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon declared that “the onus is on Iran to dissipate doubts and concerns about its nuclear ambitions,” echoing a statement delivered earlier in the day by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. Cannon also called for “immediate and complete cessation of Iran’s uranium enrichment and other sensitive proliferation activities,” noting that there is no justifiable reason for Iran to acquire the full nuclear fuel cycle.

Without specifically mentioning Israel, Cannon urged the three countries not party to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear weapons states.

You can view a video of Cannon's speech below, and read more in this Canadian Press article: "Cannon boycotts Iranian leader's speech at UN conference on nukes."

Thank you, Mr. President and let me also thank you for your stewardship of this Council. And thank you, Mr. Pascoe, for your comprehensive brief.

At the outset, I wish to express the deepest sympathy of the people and Government of Israel over the recent tragedy in which the Polish President and the members of his delegation lost their lives in a plane crash. May the nation of Poland know of no more bereavement.

Mr. President,

This debate occurs between two important days in Israel. On Monday, Yom Ha'Shoah, we commemorated the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. And on the coming Monday, Yom Ha'zikaron, we will commemorate our soldiers who have fallen in war, and all Israelis murdered by terrorists. Only after these two remembrance days can we put our hearts to celebrate our day of Independence.

These two days of remembrance shed light on our people's unending struggle to build a homeland for the Jewish people, a free, independent, and democratic state. Such solemn days signal our desire to live in peace, prosperity, and cooperation with our neighbors.

Yet in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East, all parties must realize that they have not only rights, but obligations as well.

The Palestinians and the wider Arab world must show, in both word and deed, that they, too, are committed to the peace process. They should demonstrate their will not only to demand rights, but also to accept responsibilities. They must take tangible steps to combat terrorism, to put an end incitement, to engage in direct negotiations, and to begin a process of normalization with Israel.

Mr. President,

Israel is hopeful that the proximity talks will serve as a stepping stone towards the resumption of direct, bilateral peace negotiations. Only through such negotiations can we hope to reach a comprehensive peace agreement. Yet the success of such talks – and their transition into direct negotiations – depend upon all in the region to take confidence-building steps.

Mr. President,

The Hamas terrorist rulers of the Gaza Strip maintain Gaza as an epicenter of terrorism. With support, financing, and arms from Iran, Hamas brutalizes its own people while launching deadly attacks against Israeli civilians.

On 1 April 2010, across the Egyptian-Gaza border in Sinai, a massive quantity of weapons destined for Gaza was uncovered. Throughout February and March, a wave of Qassam rockets and other terrorist attacks exposed the civilian population of southern Israel to serious threat and imminent danger.

As a result of these attacks, one agricultural worker in Israel was killed, while dozens of civilians were injured. Only yesterday, the Israeli Defense Forces discovered terrorists planting explosive devices along the Israel-Gaza border.

Given this reality, Israel will exercise its right of self-defense, pursuant to international law. Israel will never fail to fulfill her obligation to protect the people of Israel.

Israel appreciates the efforts of the international community for the support of humanitarian work in Gaza. We maintain close coordination with the Secretary-General and relevant United Nations bodies for the supply of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

In 2009 alone, 738,576 tons of humanitarian commodities were transferred to the Gaza Strip and over 100,000,000 liters of diesel were delivered to the Gaza power station. 10,544 Gazan patients and their companions received medical treatment in Israel.

These numbers reflect only part of the humanitarian aid provided to the people of Gaza. Yet Israel is still a convenient scapegoat for the situation in Gaza. However, the truth remains self-evident:

- The complicated situation in Gaza is a direct result of the Hamas terrorist occupation.

- The complicated situation in Gaza is a direct result of Hamas' continued rejection of the obligations laid out by the international community, namely: recognize Israel, renounce violence, and accept previous agreements.

- The complicated situation in Gaza is also a result of Hamas' ongoing captivity of Gilad Shalit who is denied his human rights, including access to international humanitarian personnel.

Mr. President,

Beyond Gaza, the West Bank offers an alternative future. As a direct result of Israeli-Palestinian economic and security cooperation, life for Palestinians and Israelis continues to improve.

However, obstacles remain. Violence and terrorism are ever-present challenges. Israel is deeply dismayed to see a street in Ramallah named in honor of Yehiye Ayash, a Hamas terrorist-mastermind responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians – men, women, and children.

In another disturbing event, a town square adjacent to Ramallah was renamed in honor of Dalal Mughrabi, a leader in one of the bloodiest terrorist attacks against Israel, the Costal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli and American civilians were murdered.

Given that the Road Map for peace explicitly states that "all official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel," what message does the Palestinian Authority send by publicly honoring terrorists?

Mr. President,

At this point, I would like to respond shortly to concerns that have been expressed regarding recent measures related to the prevention of illegal infiltration of individuals into the West Bank.

These concerns reflect a misunderstanding of the effect and purpose of these measures. As a matter of fact, such measures provide significant safeguards and due process protections to existing legislation. They do not extend beyond that.

Let me be very clear: these measures apply only to unlawful infiltrators into the West Bank and do not apply to other residents of the area.

Mr. President,

Let me turn to the greatest danger facing the Middle East and the world: Iran.

Iran continues to threaten to wipe Israel off the map of the world while denying the Holocaust, reigniting anti-Semitism. At the same time Iran supports terrorism and violence against Israel and Jews, far beyond the Gaza Strip.

In Lebanon, Hizbullah terrorist organization continues to amass arms from Syria and from its Iranian patrons, with the active consent and support of Syrian authorities. Recently, Syria supplied Hizbullah with long range missiles, in an overt violation of resolution 1701. By doing so, Syria actively threatens the fragile stability in the Middle East.

Yet, the most alarming danger is that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities, while mocking the diplomatic overtures of the international community. Such behavior endangers not only our region, nor merely a specific group of countries. It endangers us all, and is recognized by all. Therefore, this Council has an obligation to translate this consensus into timely and effective action. To use the words of a great poet: "… If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly…"

Mr. President,

The Iranian nuclear threat, the menace of terrorism, the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups, the incitement and hatred taught to Arab children – these are the true dangers facing the situation in the Middle East and the Question of Palestine.

All in the region have a right to live without such threats, and all in the region have the responsibility to confront these dangers.

If those in our region recognize the relationship between rights and responsibilities, we will stand at the dawn of a new era for peace in the Middle East.

###

A further resolution, calling for a fund to compensate Palestinians who suffered losses during Israel’s offensive in Gaza 14 months ago, is expected to be passed on Thursday. Click here to read the Haaretz report »

Here is the media release from the UN:

Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on Human rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories

In a resolution (A/HRC/13/L.27) on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, adopted with forty-five in favour, one against, and no abstentions, the Council reaffirms the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity and to establish their sovereign, independent, democratic and viable contiguous State; also reaffirms its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security; stresses the need for respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and urges all Member States and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (45): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (0):

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group introducing draft resolution L.27, said that realization of the right to self-determination was an essential precondition to ensure the enjoyment, protection and promotion of human rights. The draft resolution focused on the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, granted to them by the United Nations Charter, international law, and other international texts. It further recalled the relevant United Nations General Assembly, Security Council, and Human Rights Council resolutions that confirmed and defined the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination, and reaffirmed that right. In the operative part, the draft resolution reaffirmed the unqualifiable right to self-determination, including the right to live in freedom, justice and sovereignty; stressed the need for respect and preservation of the territorial integrity of all Palestinian territory; and urged all Member States of the United Nations system to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right. The draft resolution contained facts recognized, acknowledged and cherished by the international community. Due to the wide applicability of the right of self-determination to numerous situations around the world, it was hoped the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

IBRAHIM KHRAISHI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned party, thanked all those who had sponsored the draft resolution. It was hoped that in such a session next year another resolution on Palestine would be seen to allow Palestine exercise its right to self-determination. The great idea presented by President Wilson after the First World War had become an integral part of international law and all instruments. Palestine was in dire need of those concepts in order to exercise its right to freedom and self-determination. The draft resolution should be implemented in the next session. Palestine believed that objecting to the right to self-determination ran counter to all declarations made, namely that Palestinians had the right to live side by side with Israel. That legally meant the right to self-determination.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), in an explanation of vote before the vote, said it was deeply concerned over the ongoing suffering of both the Palestinian and the Israeli people. The only resolution would be for the aspiration of both sides to be achieved with two separate States. All countries should be working to advance the cause of peace, not to hinder it. To achieve a real, lasting peace, both sides had to take meaningful steps. The United States continued to urge Israel to increase the scope and quantity of goods entering and leaving Gaza to improve the humanitarian situation there. It did not accept continued Israeli settlement. It had a clear position on that matter. In light of its overarching goals, the United States was concerned to be presented with a one-sided resolution. The Council was too often exploited as a platform from which to single out Israel. The human rights record of all States should be assessed under a more robust, common rubric. The United States continued to provide diplomatic and financial support to the Palestinian Authority. It also supported programmes designed to support democracy and human rights. Peace was the region’s interest and in the world’s interest. The United State’s commitment to achieving a two-State deal was unwavering. For that reason it called on other Members to vote No.

In a resolution (A/HRC/13/L.28) on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted with forty-six in favour, one against, and no abstentions, the Council condemns the new Israeli announcement on the construction of 120 new housing units in the Bitar Elite settlement, and 1,600 new housing units for new settlers in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo, and calls upon the Government of Israel to immediately reverse its decision which would further undermine and jeopardize the ongoing efforts by the international community to reach a final settlement compliant with international legitimacy, including the relevant United Nations resolutions; urges the full implementation of the Access and Movement Agreement of 15 November 2005, particularly the urgent reopening of Rafah and Karni crossings, which is crucial to ensuring the passage of foodstuffs and essential supplies, as well as the access of the United Nations agencies to and within the Occupied Palestinian Territory; calls upon Israel to take and implement serious measures, including confiscation of arms and enforcement of criminal sanctions, with the aim of preventing acts of violence by Israeli settlers, and other measures to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians and Palestinian properties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the Advisory Opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice; and urges the parties to give renewed impetus to the peace process.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (46): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia .

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (0):

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group introducing draft resolution L.28, said in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, Israel continued its construction of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, including the Syrian Golan, and the draft resolution intended to answer the humanitarian situation that had created in the Occupied Territories. There was a legal framework to the resolution based on a wide range of international texts. It expressed concerns that continued Israeli settlement activity, including the Separation Wall, undermined the construction of a two-State solution and was contrary to international law. Those actions also threatened the peace. The text condemned and deplored the Israeli announcement of the construction of new settlements in and around East Jerusalem, and called upon the Government of Israel to reverse that decision. The text also expressed concerns on other Israeli measures, such as a tramway connecting illegal settlements, and restrictions within the Occupied Palestinian Territory on movement of people and goods, the construction of a wall around the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and other displacements of thousands of Palestinian residents. The draft resolution urged Israel to reverse the settlement policy, and to prevent acts of violence by Israeli settlers. In dealing with this illegal situation, widely condemned by the international community, the Human Rights Council should keep its humanitarian aspects in view, and adopt the resolution by consensus.

IBRAHIM KHRAISHI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned party, said the draft resolution before the Council was one that had been supported in substance and in form by the Council as a whole. Palestine recalled the campaign waged over the last few days by Israel, which had stated that settlement activities would continue. There would no longer be a territory for a Palestinian State, there would only be settlements, which would kill any chance for the establishment of a Palestinian State.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, thanked Pakistan for having introduced draft resolution L.28. Israelis had been given plots of land in the Occupied Golan Heights in Syria as well as financial rewards for settling there. The goal of all of that was to prevent any peace from being established in the region. That was a violation of international human rights law. Israel was defying peace efforts. That in itself required that those who supported Israel revised their position. Israel’s refusal to put an end to occupation was trampling on international law, and by it, Israel rejected peace in the region. Syria hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus because those who blocked peace deserved no support whatsoever.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote, said the United States had explained its position in this regard in the discussion on draft resolution L.27, and called for a vote, also calling on delegations to vote against the draft resolution.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of vote before the vote, recalled that the establishment, expansion and maintenance of settlements were illegal activities that ran counter to international law. They were an obstacle for the process that aimed at establishing a viable Palestine entity and a threat to peace. The road map was clear: Israel had to freeze all settlement activities, including those related to the natural growth of existing settlements. The European Union would vote in favour of draft resolution L.28.

In a resolution (A/HRC/13/L.29) on the grave human rights violations by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, adopted with thirty-one in favour, nine against, and seven abstentions, the Council demands that the occupying Power, Israel, end its occupation of the Palestinian land occupied since 1967, and that it respect its commitments within the peace process towards the establishment of the independent sovereign Palestinian State; strongly condemns the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; demands that the occupying Power, Israel, stop the targeting of civilians and the systematic destruction of the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people; condemns the disrespect for religious and cultural rights provided for in core human rights instruments and humanitarian law by Israel, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; demands that Israel immediately cease all diggings and excavation works beneath and around Al-Aqsa mosque compound and other religious sites in the old city of Jerusalem; calls for the immediate cessation of all Israeli military attacks and operations throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory; demands that the occupying Power, Israel, immediately stop its illegal decision to demolish a large number of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem; demands that Israel, release Palestinian prisoners and detainees including women, children and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council; calls upon Israel to lift checkpoints and open all crossing points and borders according to relevant international agreements; and demands that Israel immediately lift the siege imposed on the occupied Gaza Strip.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (9):Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (7):Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, andUkraine.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing draft resolution L.29 on behalf of the Arab Group and the Organization of Islamic Conference, said the right to life – the highest of all rights – had been violated, and expressed concern over the lack of implementation of recommendations that had been made. In the operative part, the draft resolution demanded that Israel stop occupying a number of territories, and that it agree to East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian people. It also condemned the disrespect of religious and cultural rights provided for in international instruments and humanitarian law, also demanding that Israel immediately stopped house demolitions. The text also urged Israel to refrain from violence against civilian populations and demanded that it immediately lift the siege on Gaza. The Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference hoped that Members would adopt the draft resolution by consensus.

IBRAHIM KHRAISHI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned party, said Palestine had consulted with all different sides, and was prepared to accept all opinions. However, it had turned out that it was impossible to not reflect the daily acts of aggression and violation of international human rights instruments and international humanitarian law by Israel in the draft. The greatest violation was the Occupation itself. Legal language knew no moderation inasmuch as international law applied to all human beings, no matter where they were. It was impossible to be moderate when four civilians were killed, the oldest among whom was not even 19 years old. One could not be moderate when Israel declared it was going to build 1,600 additional housing units. All were well aware of the very large number of barriers that existed. No reference was made to more than 8,500 Palestinian political prisoners, who were political prisoners who had not used weapons of any kind. No mention was made of 300 corpses that Israel had kept. On 3 March in Hebron a group of teenagers had demonstrated when they had been denied access to their homes, and some of them, including a child of seven, had been imprisoned. The Council should allow the family of that child to visit him, and bring him toys so that he could have them in his prison cell to play with. The families of more than 8,000 Palestinian political prisoners had been totally ignored. The situation had to be examined and delved into. Human rights had to be upheld, as should be the exercise of the law, and the targeting of civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli, should be stopped. The rule of law should be upheld. There was no path towards peace – peace was the path; there was no path before respect for human rights – human rights were the path.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States) called for a vote on draft resolution L.29 and encouraged Members of the Council to join the United States in voting no.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote, said the European Union had largely approved of the text. The European Union was concerned over the humanitarian situation in several Occupied Territories. It was disappointed, however, at the absence of references to the launch of missiles, which was still continuing, in the text. The European Union regretted that its efforts to improve the text had not been taken into consideration.

HECTOR RAUL PELAEZ (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote, said it would be voting in favour of the draft resolution before the Council. Without prejudice to the above, it would have been desirable for the text to be more balanced, in keeping with the resolution adopted last year, and Argentina would have liked the text to have included a condemnation of the launching of missiles and rockets against the civilian population of Israel.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group introducing draft resolution L.30 on follow-up to the report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, said the international community had expressed its dismay and strong condemnation of the aggression launched by the occupying Power Israel last year in Gaza. Draft resolution L.30 recalled the relevant parts of international law that were applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territories; stressed the need to ensure accountability for all violations of international human right and humanitarian law; welcomed the report of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner on the implementation of the relevant Council resolutions; called upon all parties to conduct independent and credible investigations that were in conformity with international law; and requested the Secretary-General to present a comprehensive report on follow-up to the mission’s report, among others.

When the Council reconvenes tomorrow it will take action on draft resolution A/HRC/13/L.30.

On Febrary 26th 2010, the UN General Assembly held a vote concerning the Report of the Human Rights Council regarding the Goldstone inquiry. Canada was one of seven countries to vote against the resolution titled “Follow Up to the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (II)”, which unfortunately passed by a vote of 98 in favour, 7 against, with 31 abstentions. Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the United States joined Canada in opposing the text.

Significantly, a number of countries such as Australia, Britain, France, and Germany – who had opposed or abstained on the previous Goldstone resolutions – shifted their vote on this text. Canada, however, continued  to demonstrate its consistent opposition to the Goldstone mandate, which it has maintained from the outset.

The resolution gives Israel and the Palestinians five additional months to conduct independent investigations into the war crimes alleged by Goldstone, threatening “further action” if this does not take place. It also reiterated the UN’s recommendation that the Swiss Government reconvene a conference on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention in the territories.