  | |
| Represented by | Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) |
|---|---|
| Membership | Permanent observer |
| Since | 1974 |
| Permanent Representative | Riyad H. Mansour |
The adoption on November 29, 1947 by the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan of partition of Palestine was one of the earliest acts of the United Nations, This followed the report of theUnited Nations Special Committee on Palestine.[2] Since then, it has maintained a central role in this region, especially by providing support for Palestinian refugees via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and by providing a platform for Palestinian political claims via the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People, the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) and the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The UN has sponsored several peace negotiations between the parties, the latest being the 2002 Road map for peace.Issues relating to the state of Israel, the Palestinian people and other aspects of the Arab–Israeli conflict occupy a large amount of debate time, resolutions and resources at the United Nations. Since its founding in 1948, the United Nations Security Council, as of January 2010, has passed 79 resolutions directly critical of Israel for violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international terrorism, or other violations of international law. Lebanon is the subject of 15 Israeli violations of UNSC resolutions, including resolutions condemning the use of military force, condemning the violations of cease-fire agreements, and demanding withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.[1]
In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. Of note is Resolution 3379 (1975) stating that "Zionism is racism"; it was rescinded in 1991.
These decisions, passed with the support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. A number of observers have qualified this degree of criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990–2003 show clear bias against Israel, with a great deal of explicit condemnation of violence against Palestinians but only occasional and vague discussion of violence against Israelis, including the use of suicide bombers.[3] In addition, the UNHRC was widely criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other human rights abusers besides Israel.
The United States has been criticized as well for vetoing most Security Council decisions critical of Israel on the basis of their biased language, the so-called Negroponte doctrine.
Since 1961, Israel has been barred from the Asian regional group. In 2000, it was offered limited membership in the Western European and Others Group.
 | |
| Membership | Full member |
|---|---|
| Since | 1949 |
| UNSC seat | Non-permanent (never elected) |
| Permanent Representative | Ron Prosor |
History
[edit]1940s
Main article: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
After World War I, the Principal Allied Powers entrusted to the United Kingdom the administration of the territory of Palestine. The United Kingdom confirmed this in a document addressed to the Council of the League of Nations done at London on July 24, 1922.[4] Article 2 of the document of July 24, 1922 provided as follows:-
- ART. 2.
- The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Following World War II and the establishment of the United Nations, the General Assembly resolved[5] that a Special Committee be created to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine. It would consist of the representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. In the final report of September 3, 1947,[6] seven members of the Committee in Chapter VI expressed themselves, by recorded vote, in favour of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union (reproduced in the Report). The Plan proposed an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem,.. .
On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of a Plan of Partition with Economic Union, General Assembly Resolution 181, a slightly modified version of that proposed by the majority in the Report of September 3, 1947, 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.[7] The vote itself, which required a two-third majority, was a dramatic affair. It led to celebrations in the streets of Jewish cities, but was rejected by the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League.
Within a few days, full scale Jewish–Arab fighting broke out in Palestine.[8] It also led to anti-Jewish violence in Arab countries,[9] and to a Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.
On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation which declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,[10] Nakba Day for Palestinians.
Resolution 181 also laid the foundation for the creation of an Arab state, but its neighbour states and the Arab League, which rejected all attempts at the creation of a Jewish state, rejected the plan.[11]
The same day, five Arab states invaded and rapidly occupied much of the Arab portion of the partition plan. This war changed the dynamic of the region, transforming a two-state plan into a war between Israel and the Arab world. During this war, resolution 194 reiterated the UN's claim on Jerusalem and resolved in paragraph 11 "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date". This resolution, accepted immediately by Israel, is the major legal foundation of the Palestinian right of return claim, a major point in peace negotiations. Resolution 194 also called for the creation of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. The Arab states initially opposed this resolution, but within a few months, began to change their position, and became the strongest advocates of its refugee and territorial provisions.[12]
[edit]Lehi assassinates U.N. mediator Folke Bernadotte
Folke Bernadotte was appointed the UN mediator in Palestine, the first official mediator in UN history. He succeeded in achieving a truce in May–June 1948 during which the British evacuated Palestine. He proposed two alternate partition plans, the second calling for a reduction in the size of the Jewish state and loss of sovereignty over the harbour city of Haifa. Both were rejected. The Zionist group Lehi assassinated him and his aide, UN observer Colonel André Serot on September 17, 1948. Bernadotte was succeeded by Ralph Bunche, who was successful in bringing about the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, for which he would later receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
In the aftermath of the 1948 war, and conditional on Israel’s acceptance and implementation of resolutions 181 and 194, the UN General Assembly voted, with the May 11, 1949 Resolution 273 (III), to admit Israel to UN membership as a "peace-loving country". This resolution reiterated the demands for UN control over Jerusalem and for the return of Palestinian refugees. The vote for resolution 273 was held during the five-month long Lausanne conference, organized by the UN to reconcile the parties. This conference was largely a failure but was noteworthy as the first proposal by Israel to establish the 1949 armistice line between the Israeli and Arab armies, the so-called green line, as the border of the Jewish state. This line has acquired an after-the-fact international sanction.[13][14][15]
Following the failure at Lausanne to settle the problem of the Arab refugees, UNRWA was created with the December 1949 resolution 302 (IV) to provide humanitarian aid to this group. Israel voted in favor. No aid was to be provided to the Jews who were displaced during the same war, nor to the millions of Jewish refugees from European and Arab countries who were already pouring into the Jewish state.
The Conciliation Commission for Palestine published its report in October 1950.[16] It is noteworthy as the source of the official number of Palestinian Arab refugees (711,000). It again reiterated the demands for UN control over Jerusalem and for the return of Palestinian refugees.
[edit]1950s
After the failure of early attempts at resolution, and until 1967, discussion of Israel and Palestine was not as prominent at the UN. Exceptions included border incidents like theQibya massacre, the passage of Security Council Resolution 95 supporting Israel's position over Egypt's on usage of the Suez Canal, and most prominently the 1956 Suez Crisis.
Following the closing of the Suez canal by Egypt, Israel, France and Great Britain attacked Egypt starting October 29, 1956. The First emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly was called on November 1 to address that crisis. On November 2, the General Assembly adopted the United States' proposal for Resolution 997 (ES-I); it called for an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of all forces behind the 1949 armistice lines and the reopening of the Suez Canal. The emergency special session consequently adopted a series of enabling resolutions which established the UNEF, the first UN peacekeeping force. On November 7, David Ben-Gurion declared victory against Egypt, renounced the 1949 armistice agreement with Egypt and added that Israel would never agree to the stationing of UN forces on its territory or in any area it occupied.[17][18] Eventually, Israel withdrew from the Sinai but with conditions for sea access to Eilat and a UNEF presence on Egyptian soil. By April 24, 1957 the canal was fully reopened to shipping.
[edit]1960s
In 1961, the regional groups were created at the UN. From the onset, Arab countries blocked the entry of Israel to the Asia group (see Regional Groups below).
After months of debate in the Security Council and General Assembly before, during and after the 1967 Six-Day War,[19]United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 was passed. It became a universally accepted basis for Arab-Israeli and later, Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. In it, the Land for peace principle was spelled out. This resolution is one of the most discussed, both within and outside of the UN.[citation needed]
In November 1967, Gunnar Jarring was appointed as the UN special envoy for the Middle East peace process. The Jarring Mission was unsuccessful.
The Six-Day War generated a new wave of Palestinian refugees who could not be included in the original UNRWA definition. From 1991, the UN General Assembly has adopted an annual resolution allowing the 1967 refugees within the UNRWA mandate.
In 1968, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People was created to investigate Jewish settlements on Palestinian territories. It generates yearly General Assembly resolutions and other documents.
[edit]1970s
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict gained prominence following the emergence of Palestinian armed groups, especially thePalestine Liberation Organization and the increased political strength of the Arab group as the main suppliers of petroleumto the Western world. At the UN, the Arab group also gained the support of the Eastern Bloc against Israel allied to the US.
In rapid succession, several events brought the Palestinian struggle to the forefront: the 1972 Munich massacre, the 1973Yom Kippur War, the ensuing 1973 oil crisis and, in 1975, the beginning of the Lebanese Civil War.
The Geneva Conference of 1973 was an attempt to negotiate a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. No comprehensive agreement was reached, and attempts in later years to revive the Conference failed.
In 1973, a General Assembly resolution about Apartheid "Condemns in particular the unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, Apartheid and Zionism."[20] This statement was reused in the preamble to resolution 3379.
About the 1974 UNESCO decision to exclude Israel from its membership, Julian Huxley, the first Director of UNESCO, wrote to The Times to complain. UNESCO defended this decision with two statements in 1974[21] and 1975.[22] Israel's membership was renewed two years later.
On November 13, 1974, Yasser Arafat became the first representative of an entity other than a member state to address the General Assembly. In 1975, the PLO was granted permanent observer status at the General Assembly.
Starting in 1974, Palestinian territories were named “Occupied Arab Territories” in UN documents. In 1982, the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" became the usual name. This phrase was not used at the UN prior to 1967, when the same territories were under military occupation by Jordan and Egypt.
The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was created in 1975 and of the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights in 1977. Also in 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People was first celebrated on November 29 the anniversary of resolution 181.
The 1975 UN Resolution 3379 stated "that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The resolution was preceded by resolutions passed at the United Nations-sponsored World Conference of the International Women's Year in 1975.[23] Resolution 3379 was sponsored by 25 Arab states; 72 voted for, 35 voted against and 32 abstained.
In his speech to the UN General Assembly after the resolution's passage, US Ambassador to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan, declared that the US "does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act." [24] Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog told his fellow delegates this resolution was "based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance. Hitler," he declared, "would have felt at home listening to the UN debate on the measure."[25]
The 1979 Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty[26] was a landmark event. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat is credited for initiating the process, following the failure of the UN-mediated peace negotiations, notably the Geneva Conference. The secret negotiations at Camp David in 1978 between Sadat, Menachem Begin and Jimmy Carter, and the treaty itself essentially bypassed UN-approved channels. The Camp David Accords (but not the Treaty itself) touch on the issue of Palestinian statehood. Egypt, Israel, and Jordan were to agree a way to establish elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt and Israel were to find means to resolve the refugee problem.[27]
The General Assembly was critical of the accords. General Assembly Resolution 34/65 (1979) condemned "partial agreements and separate treaties". It said that the Camp David accords had "no validity insofar as they purport to determine the future of the Palestinian people and of the Palestininan territories occupied by Israel since 1967". In protest, the General Assembly did not renew the peace-keeping force in the Sinai peninsula, the UNEF II, despite requests by the US, Egypt and Israel, as stipulated in the treaty. To honor the treaty despite the UN's refusal, the Multinational Force and Observers was created, which has always operated independently of the UN. Egypt was expelled from the Arab League for a period of ten years.
[edit]1980s
Between 1980 and 1988, some states made attempts to expel Israel from the General Assembly.[28] For example, the credentials committee received in 1985 a letter signed by 34 Muslim states and the USSR.[29] These attempts were unsuccessful.
The Palestinian National Council adopted in Algiers in 1988 the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine. The UN has not officiallyrecognised this state but, by renaming the PLO observer as the Palestine observer,[30] can be seen as having done so unofficially. In July 1998, the General Assembly adopted resolution 52/250 conferring upon Palestine additional rights and privileges, including the right to participate in the general debate held at the start of each session of the General Assembly, the right of reply, the right to co-sponsor resolutions and the right to raise points of order on Palestinian and Middle East issues.
[edit]1990s
Following sixteen years of intense diplomatic pressure by the US, the UN "Zionism is racism" resolution of 1975 was revoked in 1991 by resolution 46/86[31] as a precondition for the participation of Israel to the Madrid Conference.
Following the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the PLO, followed in 1994 by the Israel–Jordan peace treaty, the language of yearly General Assembly resolutions was modified to reduce criticism of Israeli actions. Moreover, between 1993 and 1995 the Security Council never directly condemned Israel. During this period, the Security Council also denounced terrorism against Israel for the first time. The most central resolution passed during this warming trend toward Israel came on December 14, 1993 when 155 member states endorsed the Israel-Palestinian and the Israel-Jordan agreements and granted "full support for the achievements of the peace process so far". This resolution was the first UN call for Middle East peace that did not criticize Israel. In October 1993, for the first time since 1981, the Arab members of the UN did not challenge Israel's seat at the General Assembly.[32]
[edit]2000s
The year 2000 saw the failure of the Camp David peace negotiations and the beginning of the Second Intifada.
In 2003, the Israeli West Bank barrier became another subject of criticism. It was declared illegal by both the General Assembly[33] and the International Court of Justice. The Court found that the portions of the wall beyond the Green Line and the associated regime that had been imposed on the Palestinian inhabitants is illegal. The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination; and land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living in violation of Israel's obligations under international law.[34]The UN Fact Finding Mission and several UN Rapporteurs subsequently noted that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin.[35]
A series of terrorist attacks in March 2002 prompted Israel to conduct Operation Defensive Shield. The fiercest episode was the battle of Jenin in the UNRWA administered refugee camp of Jenin, where 75 died (23 IDF soldiers, 38 armed and 14 unarmed Palestinians) and 10% of the camp's buildings destroyed. The UN send a first visiting mission. A separate fact-finding mission was mandated by the Security Council but blocked by Israel, a move condemned in General Assembly resolution 10/10 (May 2002).[36] This mission was replaced by a report[37] which was widely commented in the media. Many observers noted that the UN dropped the accusations of massacre made by Palestinians during and soon after the battle, and reproduced in the annex 1 of the report.
The Road map for peace is, since 2002, the latest and current effort by the UN to negotiate peace in the region. This document[38] was initially proposed by US president George W. Bush and sponsored by a quartet of the USA, Russia, the European Union and the UN. The official text is in the form of a letter to the Security Council, not a General Assembly or Security Council resolution. It generated a series of changes: the sidelining of Yasser Arafat and the unilateral withdrawal of Jewish settlers and the Israeli forces from occupied territories, notably the Gaza strip. Progress is now stalled.
In 2003, Israel sought to gain support for a resolution of its own, the first it had introduced since 1976. The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism. The resolution was worded to be very similar to General Assembly resolution 58/155 (December 22, 2003) titled " Situation of and assistance to Palestinian children". Israel withdrew the draft after a group of nations belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, led by Egypt, insisted on including amendments that would have transformed the document into an anti-Israel resolution. The changes demanded were the altering of all references to "Israeli children" to read "Middle Eastern children," and the insertion of harsh condemnation of Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and "excessive use of force" before any mention of Arab terrorism. The draft was withdrawn and never came to vote.[39][40][41]
Security Council Resolution 1544 (2004) reiterated the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law.
In 2005, the UN approached Israel with a request that it contribute IDF troops, especially military medical units, to UN peacekeeping missions such as those in Haiti, Kosovo,Congo, and Liberia. The UN also expressed interest in purchasing Israeli-made military equipment for UN peacekeepers, especially night-vision goggles and telecommunications equipment.[42]
The Israeli representative was elected in 2005 to the symbolic position of vice-president of the 60th UN General Assembly.
On December 11, 2007, the General Assembly adopted a resolution on agricultural technology for development[43] sponsored by Israel.[44] The Arab group proposed a series of amendments referring to the Palestinian occupied territories, but these amendments were rejected. The Tunisian representative said: "The Arab Group was convinced that Israel was neither interested in agriculture nor the peace process."[45] This group demanded a vote on the resolution, an unusual demand for this kind of country-neutral resolution. "The representative of the United States (...) expressed disappointment with the request for a recorded vote because that could send a signal that there was no consensus on the issues at stake, which was not the case. The United States was saddened by the inappropriate injection into the agenda item of irrelevant political considerations, characterized by inflammatory remarks that devalued the importance of the United Nations agenda".[46] The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to none against, with 29 abstentions. The abstentions were mainly from the Arab Group, with the notable exception of Pakistan which voted in favour.[47]
[edit]2010s
Further information: Palestine 194
In February 2011, United States vetoed a draft resolution to condemn all Jewish settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal.[48] The resolution, which was supported by all other Security Council members and co-sponsored by over 120 nations,[49] would have demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard."[50] The U.S. representative said that while it agreed that the settlements were illegal, the resolution would harm chances for negotiations.[50] Israel's deputy Foreign Minister, Daniel Ayalon, said that the "UN serves as a rubber stamp for the Arab countries and, as such, the General Assembly has an automatic majority," and that the vote "proved that the United States is the only country capable of advancing the peace process and the only righteous one speaking the truth: that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are required." [51] Palestinian negotiators, however, have refused to resume direct talks until Israel ceases all settlement activity.[50]
[edit]Issues
[edit]Legality of the State of Israel
Resolution 181 laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy[52] for the creation of the state of Israel; as it was the first formal recognition by an international body of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, to exist within a partition of the territory along with an Arab state.
The UN followed the practice of the Peace Conference of Paris and the League of Nations regarding the creation of states.[53] Religious and minority rights were placed under the protection of the United Nations and recognition of the new states was conditioned upon acceptance of a constitutional plan of legal protections.[54][55] Israel acknowledged that obligation, and Israel's declaration of independence stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. In the hearings before the Ad Hoc Political Committee that considered Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution.[56] The instruments that he cited were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General. Eban's explanations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, May 11, 1949.,[57] In testimony to the United States Senate in 1977, W.T. Mallisonof George Washington University argued that Israel refused to comply with nondiscriminatory requirements of Palestine partition resolution .[58] The British Mandate for Palestine expired on May 15, 1948, and the UK recognized Israeli independence eight months later. James Crawford argued more recently that Israel was created by the use of force, without the consent of any previous sovereign and without complying with any valid act of disposition.[59]
[edit]Perceptions of UN stance
In 2002, the PLO issued a report[60] comparing the international response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to similar situations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Rwanda, East Timor andIraq. It contended that the international community, and the Security Council in particular, displayed pro-Israel bias because in these other cases
" the international community has both condemned violations of international law and has taken action to ensure that the violations cease. In the case of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, however, while the same condemnations have been issued against Israel, absolutely no enforcement action has been taken."[61]
A 2005 report by the United States Institute of Peace on UN reform said that, contrary to the UN Charter's principle of equality of rights for all nations, Israel is denied rights enjoyed by all other member-states, and that a level of systematic hostility against it is routinely expressed, organized, and funded within the United Nations system.[62] In a lecture at the 2003 UN conference on antisemitism, Anne Bayefsky said:
There has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the more than a million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia being kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, UN bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning, and cross-amputation. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.[63]
A study of General Assembly resolutions published in 1991 by Morris Abram of UN Watch[64][65] reached similar conclusions. The event celebrating an annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29, 2005 was attended by Kofi Annan and other high-ranking diplomats, sitting next to a pre-1948 political map of Palestine. This map is apparently a fixture of this celebration since 1981.[66] An observer noted that the map was printed by the PLO and, therefore, "must have been produced post-1964"[67]US Ambassador Bolton wrote to Annan:
Of specific and most immediate concern is the signal potentially sent when three top UN officials, yourself and the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly, participate in an event with a "map of Palestine" prominently displayed which erases the state of Israel. (...) It can be construed to suggest that the United Nations tacitly supports the abolition of the state of Israel.[68]
The map of Israel at the UN Cartography Section shows international boundaries with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, boundary of the Palestine Mandate with Syria and the 1949 armistice demarcation line with the Palestinian territories.[69])
In October 2010, Canada lost to Portugal in a vote for a seat at the Security Council. Several observers attributed this loss to the pro-Israel policy of Canada at the UN,[70][71][72]including Canadian PM Stephen Harper.[73]
[edit]General Assembly
Main article: List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel
By 2007, Israel was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions,[74] 36% of resolutions from the Human Rights Council[75] and 7% of the Security Council resolutions.[76]
The automatic majority enjoyed by the pro-Palestinian resolutions was described in the following terms:
Tal Becker, legal advisor to Israel's permanent mission to the UN, visualizes this anti-Israel voting bloc as a series of "concentric circles." The smallest of the circles is the core of twenty Arab nations that constitute what is known as the "Arab group” which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. These countries are part of the larger fifty-six-member "Moslem group", all of whom can be counted on to consistently support anti-Israel resolutions. These fifty-six nations represent part of the Non-Aligned group of 115 largely third-world nations that formed during the Cold War and generally have voted as a group independent of Soviet or U.S. influence. And an even larger circle, considered the standard lineup against Israel, is composed of the 133 members of the G-77, which includes all of the developing countries.[77]
A few countries have consistently supported Israel's actions in the UN, such as the United States of America and the states of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau all of which are associated states of the U.S. Recently Australia, under the leadership of John Howard, and Canada, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, have also supported Israel at the UN.
Many European countries usually adopt a neutral stance, abstaining from the ongoing condemnations of Israel and supporting the foundation of a Palestinian state. Such countries include France, Russia, and Germany.
A study published by the UN Association of the UK, reviewing the language of General Assembly resolutions about Israel between 1990 and 2003, found that:
resolutions passed in the same period by the General Assembly were far more explicit in their condemnation of Israel. (...) Violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians, including the use of suicide bombers, is mentioned only a few times and then in only vague terms. Violence against Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, is described far more explicitly. Israeli occupying forces are condemned for the “breaking of bones” of Palestinians, the tear-gassing of girls’ schools and the firing on hospitals in which a specific number of women were said to be giving birth. Another trend noted in General Assembly Resolutions is a progressively more anodyne tone towards Israel throughout the period examined. This is reflected in a decreasing tendency of resolutions to specify Israeli culpability in policies and practices reviewed by the General Assembly; compare, for example, General Assembly resolution 47/70 (1992) with 58/21 (2003).[3]
As noted above, this trend towards a more anodyne tone regarding Israel at the General Assembly followed the signature of the Oslo Accords in 1993. This UN-UK report concludes that "criticism is not necessarily a product of bias, and it is not the intention here to suggest that UNGA and UNSC reproaches of Israel stem from prejudice. From the perspective of the UN, Israel has repeatedly flouted fundamental UN tenets and ignored important decisions."[3]
The 61st session of the General Assembly (2006–07) adopted 61 country-specific resolutions (see graph above). The Israeli delegation alleged:
21 of those resolutions focused on and unfairly criticized Israel. The resolutions are usually initiated by members of the Arab Group, and are passed by a wide margin ("Automatic Majority") in the General Assembly[78]
US envoy Susan Rice said in August 2009 "The assembly continues to single out Israel for criticism and let political theater distract from real deliberation."[79]
Caroline Glick writes that "Due to the UN's unvarnished belligerence toward it, in recent years a consensus has formed in Israel that there is nothing to be gained from cooperating with this openly and dangerously hostile body".[80]
Former Israeli ambassador, Dore Gold, wrote that, "The Palestinians understand that the automatic support they receive at the UN enables them to implement restrictions on Israel's right of self-defense. For this reason, the Palestinians have never abandoned the use of one-sided resolutions at the UN General Assembly, even during the most optimistic times of the peace process."[81]
In an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, Efraim Chalamish said that, in 2010, "Israel and the United Nations have significantly improved their relationships over the past few months.(...) Nowadays, the government is promoting its legitimate membership status by enhanced participation in more balanced UN forums, such as the Economic and Social Council, while still presenting a hawkish approach towards hostile and one-sided forums, including the Human Rights Council in Geneva."[82]
[edit]Emergency Special Sessions
Middle East issues were the subject of six of the General Assembly's ten 'emergency special sessions'. The tenth emergency special session has, so far, spanned nine years and has become another semi-permanent committee on the question of Palestine.
[edit]Regional Groups
The United Nations Regional Groups were created in 1961. From the onset, the majority of Arab countries within the Asia group blocked the entry of Israel in that group. Thus, for 39 years, Israel was one of the few countries without membership to a regional group and could not participate in most UN activities. On the other hand, Palestine was admitted as a full member of the Asia group on April 2, 1986.[note 1]
In 2000, Israel was admitted to the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) but Israel's membership is limited to activities at the UN's New York City headquarters. Elsewhere, Israel is an observer, not a full member, in WEOG discussions and consultations. Therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues.[87][88] The Human Rights Council meets in Geneva, UNESCO in Paris.
In December 2007, Israel was voted by WEOG to represent the grouping in consultations for two UN agencies: HABITAT, the UN Human Settlement Program, and UNEP, the UN Environment Program. Both these agencies are based in Nairobi.[89]
[edit]Terrorism
The difficulty within the UN to find a unanimous definition of the word terrorism stems in part from the inability to reach consensus over whether Palestinian political violence is a form of resistance or terrorism. The OIC countries argue that Palestinians are fighting foreign occupation.[90] From the UNODC web site,
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. (...) The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. (...) The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
Acts of Palestinian political violence have been repeatedly condemned in press releases from the Secretary General (e.g.,[91][92]). The text of General Assembly resolutions does not distinguish terrorism from military operations. For example in resolution 61/25 (2006) titled "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine",
condemning all acts of violence and terror against civilians on both sides, including the suicide bombings, the extrajudicial executions and the excessive use of force
Several resolutions recognize the right of Palestinians to fight the Israeli occupation "by all available means". For example, the 2002 UNCHR resolution E/CN.4/2002/L.16 states:
Recalling particularly General Assembly resolution 37/43 of 3 December 1982 reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples against foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle, (...) 1. Affirms the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation by all available means in order to free its land and be able to exercise its right of self-determination and that, by so doing, the Palestinian people is fulfilling its mission, one of the goals and purposes of the United Nations;[93]
Western countries who voted against this 2002 resolution claimed its language condones Palestinian terrorism:
Ms. Gervais-Virdicaire (Canada)(...) 3. The failure of the draft resolution to condemn all acts of terrorism, particularly in the context of recent suicide bombings targeting civilians, was a serious oversight which rendered it fundamentally unacceptable; there could be no justification for terrorist acts. (...) Ms. Glover (United Kingdom) (...) 16. Although her delegation agreed with many of the concerns expressed in the draft resolution, the text contained language which might be interpreted as endorsing violence and condoning terrorism.[94]
[edit]Palestinian refugees
Refugees are aided by two agencies at the UN, the UNHCR and UNRWA. UNRWA assists Palestinian refugees exclusively. Refugees are defined differently by these two organisations, the main difference being the inclusion of descendants and the inclusion of the 50% of refugees within the Palestinian territories which, by UNHCR criteria, areinternally displaced persons.
- In 2006, the UNHCR assisted a total of 17.4 million "Persons of concern" around the world, including 350,000 Palestinians, with a budget of $1.45 billion or $83 per person. The UNHCR was staffed by 6,689.
- In 2006, UNRWA assisted some 4.5 million Palestinian refugees with a regular budget of $639 million supplemented by $145 million for emergency programs, amounting to $174 per person. UNRWA was staffed by 28,000, most refugees themselves.
Andrew Whitley of UNRWA has called the hopes that Palestinian refugees might one day return to their homes "cruel illusions".[95]
[edit]Shebaa farms
The status of seven small villages collectively known as the Shebaa farms, located near Mount Dov at the Lebanon-Syria border, is controversial.[96] Some evidences support a Syrian territory,[97] others a Lebanese territory.[98]
The United Nations considers this territory as Syrian which has, since the 1967 Six day war, been occupied by Israel. Following the 1978 Israel-Lebanon war, the Security Council accepted the report of UN-mandated cartographers stating that "as of 16 June 2000 Israel has withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with resolution 425 (1978)"[99] In accordance with this decision, the current map fromUNIFIL shows this territory as Syrian.[100]
Hezbollah is an armed Lebanese group originally formed to repel the 1982 Israeli occupation of South Lebanon. Since 2000, it continues to fight occupation of Lebanon by Israel, using the Shebaa farms as justification.[101] Following the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, the UN accepted at the request of the Lebanese government to re-evaluate the ownership of this territory. This promise was included in the text of Security Council resolution 1701. In August 2008, the Lebanese govt adopted Hezbollah's claim to the "right of Lebanon's people, the army and the resistance to liberate all its territories in the Shebaa Farms, Kfarshuba Hill and Ghajar".[102]
A Lebanon Independent Border Assessment Team (LIBAT) was mandated by the UN but has not yet reported on this issue.
[edit]United States policy at the UN
- See also United States and the United Nations.
The U.S. used its veto to protect Israel from over forty condemnatory Security Council resolutions;[103] almost all U.S. vetos cast since 1988 blocked resolutions against Israel, on the basis of their lack of condemnation of Palestinian terrorist groups, actions, and incitement. This policy, known as the Negroponte doctrine, has drawn both praise and criticism.[104][105]
In a review of Boutros Boutros-Ghali's autobiography,
Unvanquished reveals how difficult it is for an Arab secretary-general to work successfully amidst the overwhelmingly pro-Zionist political environment in both Washington and New York. (...) The Israelis, he was once told by State Department officials, were convinced that they had “the U.S. veto in their pocket” (page 194). He even noted that when he sent a letter to Israel he got a reply from the United States (page 203).[106]
Regarding the nomination of John Bolton as the US representative to the UN, the IRC writes in 2006:
Tom Casey, director of the State Department's press office, said: “I don't think you'll find anyone in this administration who is a stronger friend of Israel.” (...) In December 2005 the Zionist Organization of America honored Bolton with its annual Defender of Israel Award.[107]
UN diplomats have indicated that the United States would veto any unilateral attempt to declare a Palestinian state at the Security Council.[108]
[edit]Human Rights Council
The UN Human Rights Council was created in April 2006[109] to address criticism about the previous UNCHR. A UNDPI document lists, among the differences between the two bodies, Working agenda: CHR – Includes Agenda Item 8 targeting Israel, HRC – Starts with a clean slate.[110] But since 2006, the review of human rights abuses by Israel was made a permanent feature of every council session. No other country is subject to a permanent review. In 2010, Canadian politician Irwin Cotler wrote:
...in an appalling breach of its own principles and procedures, the UN Human Rights Council has institutionalised a permanent agenda item indicting one member state – agenda item No 7, which speaks of "Israeli human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories" – while agenda item No 8 speaks of "human rights violations in the rest of the world". Here is an Alice in Wonderland situation where the conviction is secured before the hearing begins.[111]
According to UN Watch, between 2006 and 2010, the Council held six of nine special sessions on Israel, 35 of 40 or so resolutions on Israel and all five fact-finding missions on Israel, "all with the guilty verdict declared in advance."[112]
The UNHRC sits in Geneva, thus excluding Israel from participating due to its limited membership to the WEOG group; see Regional Groups above.
At its Second Special Session in August 2006, the Council voted to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations that Israel systematically targeted Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Israel–Lebanon conflict.[113] The Commission noted that its report on the conflict would be incomplete without fully investigating both sides, but that "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel".[114]
The Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, the current UNHRC and the General Assembly was, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. The mandate of the Rapporteur is to investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians.[115] Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.[116][117][118] Like his predecessor, Falk's mandate only covers Israel’s human rights record.[119] Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a former UNGA president, was elected to the UNHRC Advisory Committee in June 2010.[120]
Many observers have made allegations of anti-Israel bias. The Economist wrote: "In its fourth regular session, which ended in Geneva on March 30, the 47-member council again failed to address many egregious human-rights abuses around the world. (...) Indeed, in its nine months of life, the council has criticised only one country for human-rights violations, passing in its latest session its ninth resolution against Israel."[121] In 2007 Human Rights Watch noted the Human Rights Council disproportionate focus on Israel and accused it for failing to take action on other countries facing human rights crises.[122] Similar accusations were voiced by Freedom House,[123][124] the Washington Post,[125] Kofi Annan,[126] Ban Ki-moon,[127] US President George W. Bush,[128] and members of the European Parliament.[129] The UNHRC President himself, Doru Costea, said in 2007 that the Council should "not place just one state under the magnifying glass".[130]
In 2008, Israel was the target of 5/11 UNHCR resolutions (45%)[131] and 1/28 decisions.[132] Renewed accusations of an anti-Israel agenda at the UNHCR were voiced by theADL,[133] the Wall Street Journal[134] and the National Post.[135] In a report on the Council activities between June 2007 and June 2009, Freedom House finds some improvement but notes that "Israel remained the target of an inordinate number of both condemnatory resolutions and special sessions."[136]
Esther Brimmer of the United States State Department said on September 15, 2010 "we must remedy the [UNHR]Council’s ongoing biased and disproportionate focus on Israel."[137] US Congress member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen called for defunding of the HRC over its excessive criticism of Israel.[138] The Daily News (New York) denounces the apparent bias at the HRC in two editorials.[139][140] Current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay denied the accusations of anti-Israel bias at the Council.[141]Addressing the Council in February 2011, Hillary Clinton denounced its "structural bias against Israel".[142] In March 2012, the UNHRC was further criticised by the United States over its anti-Israel bias. It took particular exception to the council’s Agenda Item 7, under which at every session, Israel’s human rights record is debated. No other country has a dedicated agenda item. The US Ambassador to the UNHRC Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said that the United States was deeply troubled by the "Council’s biased and disproportionate focus on Israel." She said that the hypocrisy was further exposed in the UN Golan Heights resolution that was advocated by the Syrian regime at a time when it was murdering its own citizens.[143]
In March 2012, the UN Human Rights Council was criticised for facilitating an event featuring a Hamas politician. The Hamas parliamentarian had spoken at an NGO event in the UN Geneva building. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu castigated the UNHRC's decision stating, "He represents an organization that indiscriminately targets children and grown-ups, and women and men. Innocents – is their special favorite target." Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, denounced the speech stating that Hamas was an an internationally recognized terrorist organization that targeted civilians. “Inviting a Hamas terrorist to lecture to the world about human rights is like asking Charles Manson to run the murder investigation unit at the NYPD”, he said.[144]
[edit]Fact-finding mission on the 2008 Gaza War (Goldstone report)
Main article: United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
A fact finding mission on Human Rights violations during the 2008 Gaza War between Israel and Hamas was called by Jan 12, 2009 UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1 which limited the investigation to "violations (...) by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip" but, before any investigation, already "Strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which has resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people".
Former UN high commissioner for human rights and Ireland President Mary Robinson refused to head the mission because she "felt strongly that the Council’s resolution was one-sided and did not permit a balanced approach to determining the situation on the ground."[145]
On April 3, 2009, Richard Goldstone was named as the head of the mission. In a July 16 interview, he said "at first I was not prepared to accept the invitation to head the mission". "It was essential," he continued, to expand the mandate to include "the sustained rocket attack on civilians in southern Israel, as well as other facts." He set this expansion of the mandate as a condition for chairing the mission.[146] The next day, he wrote in the New York Times "I accepted because the mandate of the mission was to look at all parties: Israel; Hamas, which controls Gaza; and other armed Palestinian groups."[147] The UNHRC press release announcing his nomination documents the changed focus of the mission.[148] Writing in The Spectator, commentator Melanie Phillips said that the resolution that created the mandate allowed no such change and questioned the validity and political motivations of the new mandate.[149]
Israel thought that the change of the mandate did not have much practical effect.[150]
Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Mission and denied its entry to Israel, while Hamas and Palestinian National Authority supported and assisted the Mission.[151][152]
In January, months before the mission, Professor Christine Chinkin, one of the four mission members, signed a letter to the London Sunday Times, asserting that Israel's actions "amount to aggression, not self-defense" and that "the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law".[153] On this basis, NGO UN Watch petitioned Chinkin to withdraw from the Mission.[154] She authored the final report.
Israel concluded that "it seemed clear beyond any doubt that the initiative was motivated by a political agenda and not concern for human rights" and therefore refused to cooperate with it – in contrast to its policy to cooperate fully with most of the international inquiries into events in the Gaza Operation.[155]
The mission report was published on Sep 15, 2009.[156] As noted in the press release, the mission concluded "that serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel in the context of its military operations in Gaza from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity. The Mission also found that Palestinian armed groups had committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity."[157]
Goldstone, however, explained that what he had headed wasn’t an investigation, but a fact-finding mission. "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven," Goldstone said, emphasizing that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. Nevertheless, the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author.[158]
Reactions to the report's findings were varied. The report was not immediately ratified by a UNHRC resolution. This step was postponed to March 2010.[159] This delay is attributed to diplomatic pressure from Western members of the Council, including the US which joined in April 2009 and, surprisingly, from the Palestinian Authorityrepresentative.[160][161][162] About the U.S. pressure, UNHRC representative Harold Hongju Koh described the U.S. participation to the Council as "an experiment" with the Goldstone report being the first test.[163]
The report was finally ratified by October 14 UNHRC resolution A/HRC/S-12/L.1.[164] Like the January 12 resolution but unlike the report, this ratification condemns Israel, not Hamas.[165] The "unbalanced focus" of the ratification was criticized by U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly,[166] U.S. ambassador to the UNHRC Douglas Griffiths and Richard Goldstone himself[167]
On April 1, 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document".[168] On April 14, 2011 the three other co authors of the United Nations (UN) fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008–2009Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers released a joint statement criticizing Goldstones recantation of this aspect of the report. They all agreed that the report was valid and that Israel and Hamas had failed to investigate alleged war crimes satisfactorily.[169][170]
[edit]Commission on the Status of Women
During its 51st session in 2007, the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women said that it
Reaffirms that the Israeli occupation remains a major obstacle for Palestinian women with regard to their advancement, self-reliance and integration in the development planning of their society[171]
A spokeswoman outlined Israel's position on the resolution:
"As in previous years, this Commission has before it, once again, a resolution on the sole situation of Palestinian women. In monopolizing attention for Palestinian women and promoting uneven standards, the resolution turns a humanitarian issue into a political one. Hence, it damages the prospects for peace based on mutual respect and understanding.[172]
[edit]Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
Jean Ziegler, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, published in October 2003 a report[173] accusing Israel of starving Palestinian children. The NGO UN Watch called the report biased.[174] The Israeli ambassador to the UN demanded that the report be withdrawn and accused its author of abusing his office.[175]
[edit]UNESCO
UNESCO has adopted hundreds of decisions on the access of Palestinians to education. Palestine is the only territory with a yearly decision to this effect.[citation needed] UNESCO also adopts yearly resolutions for the preservation of the old Jerusalem, a UNESCO world heritage site included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
In 2007, an emergency session of UNESCO was held to discuss Israeli archaeological excavations at the Mughrabi ascent in the Old City of Jerusalem. The session report said that the excavations were "a naked challenge by the Israeli occupation authorities" to the UN position on the status of Jerusalem.[176] Following a fact-finding mission, Israel was exonerated of blame by the executive board.[citation needed] UNESCO never criticized repeated episodes of mechanized excavations within the Temple Mount ground by the MuslimWaqf, and is financing a museum within the al-Aqsa Mosque.[citation needed]
[edit]Arab discrimination against Palestinians
Many Palestinian refugees are located in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. In 2003 Amnesty International sent a memorandum to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), expressing concerns about discrimination against Palestinians. CERD responded in 2004, urging the Lebanese government to "take measures to ameliorate the situation of Palestinian refugees … and at a minimum to remove all legislative provisions and change policies that have a discriminatory effect on the Palestinian population in comparison with other non-citizens."[177]
The violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007 has, so far, not been condemned at the UN.[citation needed] In November 2007, Ha'aretz reported that the Palestinian Authority observer at the UN, Riad Mansour, had sought to include a clause "expressing concern about the takeover by illegal militias of Palestinian Authority institutions in June 2007" and calling for the reversal of this situation. It reported diplomatic sources as saying that Mansour had been subjected to a barrage of insults, led by the representatives of Egypt, Syria and Libya. Delegates from some Arab countries had claimed that Mansour's initiative would be interpreted as an official UN condemnation of Hamas, and would gain Israel international legitimacy for cutting electricity and fuel supplies to Gaza. Mansour agreed to softer language expressing "concern about an illegal takeover."[178]
In March 2007, Hillel Neuer of UN Watch said about the UNHRC:
But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights? Let us consider the past few months. (...) Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops".Why has this Council chosen silence? Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the despots who run this Council couldn't care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.[179][180][181]
Between May and September 2007, the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon became the center of fighting between the Lebanese Internal Security Force and Fatah al-Islam gunmen.[182] The Lebanese Army was supported in this action by Palestinian movements responsible for security in the camp.[183] Bombing by the Lebanese army left the camp in ruins and caused the mass displacement of 27,000 Palestinian refugees to other camps.[184] The UN Security Council issued two statements during the fighting, both condemning Fatah al-Islam and "fully support[ing] the efforts carried out by the Lebanese Government and army to ensure security and stability throughout Lebanon".[185][186][187][188] Khaled Abu Toameh[189] and Jonathan Kay[190] faulted the UN for not condemning the Lebanese Army, arguing that it had condemned Israeli Defense Forces in similar circumstances in the past, namely the Battle of Jenin.
[edit]UNRWA perpetuating Palestinian refugee status
Several observers accuse the UN of promoting this discrimination by creating a special status for Palestinian refugees. A report by the International Federation for Human Rightsstated:
Because the UNRWA's position consists of the prospect of a conflict resolution leading to the creation of an independent Palestinian State and to the return of the refugees on that territory, as a definitive solution, it tends to justify the Lebanese policies granting the Palestinian refugees only a minimal legal status. In other words, the Palestinian refugees' rights are limited to the right of residence as a condition of the application of UNRWA's humanitarian assistance.[191]
A 2007 op-ed by Nicole Brackman and Asaf Rominowsky stated:
UNRWA serves as a crucial tool of legitimacy for the Palestinian refugee issue — as long as the office is active, how could anyone question the Palestinian refugee problem? Thus an oxymoronic situation: Despite the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and the creation in 1993 of a Palestinian Authority with jurisdiction over the Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza/West Bank, UNRWA remains the key social, medical, educational and professional service provider for Palestinians living in "refugee" camps. This runs contrary to every principle of normal territorial integrity and autonomy.[192]
A similar argument was made by commentators in The Independent[193] and in a 2009 report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.[194]
[edit]Antisemitism
For more details on this topic, see New antisemitism.
Antisemitism, the expression of hatred against all Jews, is distinct from anti-zionism and condemned by the UN since 1998.[195] However, classical antisemitic statements are occasionally recorded at the UN.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee provides examples of comments deemed antisemitic that were recorded in UN conferences, pre-1998 UN condemnation.[196] Anne Bayefsky provided examples of comments deemed antisemitic recorded in 2010 and pointed to an absence of objection or blame from UN officials or state representatives.[197]
In 1999, Kofi Annan said "I know that to some of you in this audience, and in the Jewish community at large, it has sometimes seemed as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews." Kofi then continues on, "I am glad to say that the Jewish community has been a significant presence at the United Nations from the beginning."[198][199]
[edit]Disproportionate criticism of Israel as antisemitism
The Fundamental Rights Agency equate the theoretical use of double standards in judging Israel with New antisemitism.[200] In a 2008 report on antisemitism from the US Department of State to the US Congress,
Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices. (...) However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism.[201]
[edit]Tolerance of antisemitism
Since its creation, the UN often condemned racial discrimination, including some 58 resolutions and decisions condemning Nazism, but resolution A/RES/53/133 (December 1998) was the first time the General Assembly included antisemitism among the forms of racism it wished to eliminate.[202]
A 1999 Middle East Quarterly article said that a reference to the Qur'an as a source of antisemitism in a 1997 report to the UNCHR by the UN special rapporteur on racism was removed at the request of the Indonesian representative.[203]
Since its creation, the UN hosted many conferences against racism and discrimination but the first conference on antisemitism was held in 2004.[204][205]
In a 2007 report, UN Watch reviewed the record of the UN in the fight against antisemitism since the 2004 conference. "While progress in some areas was encouraging, our report also revealed inaction, and, worse, the aiding and abetting of anti-Semitism through an infrastructure of manifestly one-sided and irrational UN measures designed to demonize the Jewish state."[206]
The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad each year makes a speech at the General Assembly, always highly critical of Israel. His September 2008 speech was described by the correspondent of The Times as "a rambling speech punctuated by anti-Semitic bluster". The American and Israeli delegations walked out, while Ahmadinejad launched "a series of startling attacks on Israel and Jews in general, blaming them for all the world’s ills".[207] The speech was described as antisemitic by Germany's FM Steinmeier,[208] and by Senator Barack Obama.[207]
In March 2010, the International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD) submitted a statement to UNHRC saying that "Israeli physicians, Medical Centres, rabbis and the Israeli army" engage in theft and trade of organs taken from killed and kidnapped Palestinians.[209] The submission was included on the UNHRC website. The NGO UN Watch called the statement antisemitic and accused the UNHRC of double standards for publishing it unedited although it had previously censored the language of UN Watch submissions.[210]
On June 8, 2010, Syrian delegate to the UNCHR Rania al Rifay said: "Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school. And I quote, 'With my teeth I will rip your flesh, with my mouth I will suck your blood.'" Alex van Meeuwen, the Belgian ambassador who held the HRC presidency, made no comment during, or after, Al-Rifai’s presentation.[211][212] UN Watch called this statement racist.[213]
[edit]2001 Durban conference against racism
During the World Conference against Racism held in Durban in 2001, the "Zionism is racism" accusation resurfaced.
About the 2001 Durban's World Conference against Racism, Mirek Prokes of UNITED for Intercultural Action noted:
All through the NGO Forum, there have been Antisemitic incidents. The Arab Lawyers Union had a stall in the NGO exhibition tents displaying gross Antisemitic cartoons. Copies of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion were being sold. When the ISC was asked to do something against the Antisemitic cartoons they decided that the cartoons were not racist but 'political'.[214]
A similar scene was described by Anne Bayefsky[215] The Qatar delegate said, according to official UN records:
"the Israeli enmity towards the Palestinians, and its destruction of their properties and economy do not stem from its desire to subjugate them to the arrogance of power only, but also from its strong sense of superiority which relegates the Palestinians to an inferior position to them. Ironically enough, the Israeli security is sacred when balanced against the Palestinian security and all the Israeli heinous violations are justified as a means to bring back every Jew to a land that they raped from its legitimate owners and denied them their right to claim it back."[216]
In a 2002 interview with the BBC, Mary Robinson said some good came out of the conference
but I also admit that it was an extremely difficult conference. That there was horrible anti-Semitism present – particularly in some of the NGO discussions. A number people came to me and said they've never been so hurt or so harassed or been so blatantly faced with an anti-Semitism.[217]
Navanethem Pillay, the current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, published in 2008 a similar opinion of the event[218]
[edit]2009 Durban Review conference
The April 2009 Durban Review Conference held in Geneva, was boycotted by nine western countries. During an official speech at this conference, Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said :
some powerful countries (...) under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine. The Security Council endorsed this usurper regime and for 60 years constantly defended it and let it commit any kind of crime.(...) The global Zionism is the complete symbol of racism, which with unreal reliance on religion has tried to misuse the religious beliefs of some unaware people and hide its ugly face.[219]
During his speech, all European representatives walked out.[220][221] The final outcome document makes no reference to Israel or Palestinians.[222]
[edit]"Zionism is racism"
Main article: Israel and the apartheid analogy
The 1975 resolution that "Zionism is racism" was revoked by resolution 4686 in 1991; 25 Muslim[clarification needed] states voted against this revocation. During the first ever conference on antisemitism at the UN, in 2004, Kofi Annan said that the UN record on antisemitism had sometimes fallen short of the institution's ideals, and that he was glad that the "especially unfortunate" 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism had been rescinded.[223]
The "Zionism is racism" concept reappeared in 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban. Zouheir Hamdan (Lebanon) claimed that "One (Israeli) minister described the Palestinians as serpents, and said they reproduced like ants. Another one proposed that Palestinians in Israel be marked with yellow cards".[224] A draft resolution denounced the emergence of "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority.".[225] The draft was removed following the departure of the US and Canadian delegates. General Assembly President Father Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann repeated the accusation in a speech during the 2008 International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.[226]
On January 24, 2008, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour welcomed[227] the entry into force of the Arab Charter on Human Rights which states:
Article 2(3) All forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination constitute an impediment to human dignity and a major barrier to the exercise of the fundamental rights of peoples; all such practices must be condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination.[228]
Following criticisms about this statement,[229][230][231] Arbour distanced herself from some aspects of the charter.[232] The charter is listed in the web site of her office, among texts adopted by international groups aimed at promoting and consolidating democracy[233]
[edit]Direct involvement of UN personnel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
There have been occasional reports of UN personnel becoming caught up in hostilities.
Indian peacekeepers of the UNIFIL peace mission in Southern Lebanon were accused of complicity in the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid, in which three Israel Engineering Corpssoldiers were killed and their bodies captured after Hezbollah fighters infiltrated into Israel.[234] According to the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv, Hezbollah bribed several Indian troops with hundreds of thousands of dollars in return for participating in the kidnapping and secretly negotiated with them to make sure that they would participate. Israeli investigators who were sent to India to question the suspected soldiers were told that Hezbollah had paid them large sums of money for their cooperation.[235]
On November 22, 2002, during a gun battle between the IDF and Islamic Jihad militants, Iain Hook, UNRWA project manager of the Jenin camp rehabilitation project, was killed by Israeli gunfire.[236] A soldier had reportedly mistaken him for a militant and a cellphone in his hand for a gun or grenade.[237]
On May 11, 2004, Israel said that a UN ambulance had been used by Palestinian militants for their getaway following a military engagement in Southern Gaza,[238]
In 2004, Israel complained about comments made by Peter Hansen, head of UNRWA. Hansen had said that there were Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, and that he did not see that as a crime, they were not necessarily militants, and had to follow UN rules on staying neutral.[239][240][241]
On July 26, 2006 Israeli aircraft and artillery attacked a well-marked, long-standing UNIFIL position, killing four UNIFIL peacekeepers. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the bombing “deliberate”, while Israel claimed that Hezbollah had fighters that fired from the vicinity of that position, and had sheltered near it to avoid an Israeli counterstrike.[242][243]
In 2008, the Israeli Defense Ministry accused UNIFIL of intentionally concealing information to the Security Council about Hezbollah military activity south of the Litani river, in violation of its mandate.[244]
In January 2009 during the Gaza war, a number of people were killed by Israeli bombing outside a school run by the UNRWA ; the number and identity of victims is disputed (see Al-Fakhura school incident for details.) Initially, the UN accused Israel of directly bombing the school. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator for the Palestinian territories, described the incidents as tragic. Israel claims that a Hamas squad was firing mortar shells from the immediate vicinity of the school. Hamas denies this claim. In February 2009, Gaylord said that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school".[245][246] The headquarters of the UNRWA in Gaza was also shelled on January 15. Tons of food and fuel were destroyed. Israel claims that militants ran for safety inside the UN compound after firing on Israeli forces from outside. UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness dismissed the Israeli claims as "baseless".[247][248]
In March 2012, UN official Khulood Badawi, an Information and Media Coordinator for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, tweeted a picture of a Palestinian child covered in blood and falsely claimed that she had been killed in an IDF strike. She captioned the picture with "Another child killed by #Israel... Another father carrying his child to a grave in #Gaza.” It was later established that the picture was published in 2006 and was of a Palestinian girl who had died in an accident unrelated to Israel.[249][250][251]
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor called for her dismissal, stating that she was "directly engaged in spreading misinformation". He accused her conduct as deviating from "the organization’s responsibility to remain impartial" and said that such actions "contribute to incitement, conflict and, ultimately, violence.”[249][250][251]
The media watchdog organisation Honest Reporting documented how the photo had been used to misrepresent Israeli actions in Gaza and that it had already been re-tweeted by hundreds of people around the world. Its CEO Joe Hyams called on the UN to dismiss Badawi from her position. He stated that it was abhorrent that a UN employee would use their position as information and media coordinator to manipulate public sentiment and accused Badawi as caring "more for the lie, than for life.” His call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users.[249][250][251]
[edit]Cooperation with UN missions
In December 2008 Israel detained Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, and denied him transit to West Bank on his official mission.[252]
[edit]Controversy towards the UN
In a February 2012 visit to Gaza, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon was attacked by Palestinian protestors, who "threw shoes, sticks and stones" at his vehicle, "protesting against what they saw as a slight against Palestinians jailed in Israel," as well as hitting his vehicle with signs "accusing Ban of bias towards Israel and of refusing to meet the relatives of Palestinian prisoners."[253]
Comments
Post a Comment