American Jewish International Relations Institute

AJIRI Report #13   								    May 2007	

THE UN’S ANTI-ISRAEL PROPAGANDA MACHINE KEEPS CHURNING, DEMANDING AID FOR HAMAS-DOMINATED PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

Summary

The recent UN-sponsored Conference in Pretoria focused on two themes: (a) the traditional charge that having seized the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel represses their residents and refuses to enter into negotiations that would lead to peaceful co-existence, and (b) the new claim that the problems of the Palestinians are exacerbated by the refusal of the United States and the EU to provide economic aid to the present Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority government.

The latest quarterly Israel-bashing conference sponsored and paid for by the UN was held in Pretoria, South Africa, from May 9 to 11, 2007 and organized by the UN General Assembly’s Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) and the UN Secretariat’s Division for Palestinian Rights. It drew representatives of 58 governments, four intergovernmental organizations, five UN agencies, and 20 “civil society” organizations. It was the third such conference held during the current, 61st session of the General Assembly, following similar meetings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, (December 2006) and in Doha, United Arab Emirates, (February 2007). 

A few speakers offered a somewhat balanced view, but these statements were muted, at best. The overwhelming number of those who took the floor, including a UN staff member, were vehement in their criticism of Israel. The picture they painted was one of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, to which Palestinians responded in self-defense. 

While those who want to press this anti-Israel narrative have a right to use the United Nations for that purpose, it is unacceptable for the United Nations to convene conferences on different continents every three months for a totally unbalanced presentation of the issues in an international conflict. The UN fails to make similar arrangements for a presentation of the views of the Government of Israel, nor does it invite truly independent experts to present their analyses of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The Pretoria meeting was attended by two Israeli Jews and by Henry Siegman, formerly of the American Jewish Congress, now engaged with the Council on Foreign Relations. Two of the three joined in the chorus of denunciation of Israel, with Siegman calling for an international declaration that, in the absence of a negotiated agreement, Israel must return to its pre-1967 borders. The third, a Meretz member of the Knesset, spoke of the “negative effect” of terror, the only speaker to address that issue candidly.     


Pretoria Conference Proceedings

Message of Secretary-General Ban

As usual, the meeting opened with the reading of a message from the UN Secretary-General. And, as usual, the message, while given a veneer of impartiality, was heavily slanted against Israel:

During my recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, I saw first-hand some of the obstacles that, over the years, have stalled progress in the peace process. I was deeply troubled by the network of checkpoints, by settlements and by the construction of the Barrier on a route that deviates from the Green Line. In talking to ordinary Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, I was struck by their deep longing for their own State and the many frustrations they face in their daily lives. The humanitarian situation is woeful and deteriorating, and the economy needs to be urgently revitalized.

Through my visit I also came to better understand the security concerns facing Israelis. Rocket attacks and indiscriminate violence against civilians should be stopped completely and without conditions. Security is also an urgent need for the Palestinians, who face a rising death toll as a result of IDF [Israel Defense Forces] incursions, as well as internal violence in Gaza.

Thus, this new Secretary-General, representing an organization whose principal purpose is to maintain international peace and security, devotes his message largely to criticism of Israel’s measures of self-defense. At the same time, he limits his criticism of Palestinian violence to attacks on civilians, thus implying that there would be no objection to the initiation of attacks on the Israeli Defense Forces.

Secretary-General Ban’s statement to the Pretoria Conference was quite similar to messages of this kind sent by Secretary-General Annan to earlier such CEIRPP Conferences. It was probably written by the same staff members that wrote the Annan messages. However, it is worth noting that Annan’s final message (to the Conference in Kuala Lumpur in December 2006) may very well have been written by the Secretary- General himself, as he was about to leave his position at the UN. He warned against one-sided criticism of Israel:

I believe the Committee itself should seek to ensure that its efforts make a positive difference. Too often, the work of parts of the United Nations system is too easily dismissed as being reflexively biased against Israel, which, in turn, limits its ability to help the tragically suffering Palestinian people on the ground. It hurts both Palestinians and Israelis if the United Nations is perceived as too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process.


Statements by Governmental Representatives

Conference participants gave lip service to calls for peace talks but sought to dictate the outcome, consistently calling for full support of the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority government, without reference to Hamas’s endorsement of terrorism. Thus, the Conference opened with a statement delivered on behalf of President Mbeki of South Africa, who “urged the international community to give unconditional recognition to, and engage in dialogue, with, the newly established Palestinian Unity Government, lift all restrictions on that Government, and recognize and take appropriate action to address the dire humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinian people.”  Mbeki complained that “key international donors have cut off aid to the population after Hamas won the democratic elections last year.” While condemning Palestinian rocket fire into Israel, Mbeki said, South Africa “would also condemn Israel’s ongoing military incursions into Gaza and other disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force.”

The next statement, by the Senegalese Chairman of CEIRPP, repeated these themes. He spoke of “the grave security and humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which was the direct consequence of the occupation,” and of Israel’s “targeted assassinations, arrests, home demolitions, closures and curfews,” which “deepened the Palestinian people’s despair and often triggered retaliation.” 

The Palestinian Authority’s representative contended: “In grave breach of international law, Israel continues to carry out military attacks against civilians, killing and injuring Palestinian men, women, and children, continues to destroy homes, properties and agricultural lands, and continues to construct, expand and entrench its illegal settlements and to construct the monstrous ‘apartheid wall’ throughout the Occupied West Bank, particularly in and around East Jerusalem, intensifying its siege and isolation of the Holy City. Israel also continues to detain and imprison 11,000 civilians, including over 100 women and hundreds of children and continues to impose all means of collective punishment upon the Palestinian people…”

Other government representatives spoke in the following order:

Mauritius offered genuinely balanced observations, expressing support of the Road Map as “one of the most sure routes to peace” and encouraging “both sides to adhere to their obligations under that diplomatic initiative.”

Cuba (Vice-Chair of CEIRPP), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, led the chorus of concern “that the international community continues to withhold funds from the newly formed Palestinian Unity Government.”

Algeria spoke of “a double standard that not only drove Israel’s aggression but exacerbated the already-bereft situation of the Palestinian people.” The speaker complained about the “boycott of the Palestinian Authority, which threatened to change the situation from a political issue into a humanitarian crisis.”
Malaysia “called on Israel and all countries that had not done so to recognize the newly formed Palestinian Government.”

The representative of the African Union said that “Israel must be made to stop its killing and destruction in the Occupied Territory [and] must be forced to abide by numerous international legal decisions—particularly those calling for the abandonment of its colonialist expansion policy and ceasing construction of its ‘apartheid wall’.”

Pakistan declared that “Israel’s continued activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory were the cause of much pain, hopelessness, and disillusionment on the part of the Palestinian people.” Its representative urged “that the international community … press Israel to recognize the [Palestinian Unity] Government.”

A spokesman for the Organization of the Islamic Conference said that “Israel had ratcheted up its aggression against the Palestinian people, increased the number of checkpoints and continued the construction of its apartheid wall.” He contended that “Israel’s continued excavation beneath a mosque of historic and cultural significance to all religions has seriously escalated tensions inside the Territory.”

Tunisia called on the “European Union and the wider international community to lift financial and resource embargoes on the new [Palestinian Unity] Government.”

The most extreme statement was made by Syria, which said “the meeting was being held while Israel continued its unprecedented campaign of destruction inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel’s barbaric practices, particularly its abduction, ongoing detention and even targeted killing of democratically elected officials were now extended to Gaza and the West Bank, which had been turned into virtual prisons …The horrors of Israel’s actions and its continued occupation of Syrian and Lebanese territories were exacerbated by the support it received from major super-Powers, including on the Security Council. Such Powers continued to stymie the efforts of the international community to protect the peace-loving Palestinian people from the Israeli arsenal and perpetuated Israel’s belligerent, discriminatory and irresponsible policies.”

Morocco declared that it “shared the solidarity with the Palestinian people expressed by other people.”

Libya said that “the Palestinian struggle was not terrorism; it was the 40-year occupation that was terrorism. The status quo that Israel had created with its land-grabbing, construction of the wall and other illegal activities had severely undermined efforts to seek a two-State solution. The international community should also be concerned about Israel’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Statements by “Experts”

The CEIRPP has recently invited Jewish Israelis who are prepared to deliver anti-Israel statements. The first “expert” to offer a statement was Gideon Levy, a columnist for Ha'aretz. He said that it was “very unpleasant to sit and hear accusations against one’s country, but it was much more unpleasant to sit and listen to such accusations knowing that they were justified.”

Next, the head of the Gaza office of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process spoke of  “the dire conditions of the people of Gaza.” He said that the “Agreement on Movement and Access had gone largely unimplemented,” that “the separation wall in the West Bank was still under construction and settlements were still being expanded” and added that unless these “issues were urgently addressed by the Quartet and the wider international community, the situation would pose a grave problem for the region and the world.”

The Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights, Pretoria, spoke of “the dire humanitarian consequences, especially for women and children, due to the ongoing construction of the separation wall in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. Some 70 per cent (sic!) of the population of the West Bank was now separated from their jobs and families, and most of the water stations were located in the closed zone…. The ongoing settlement activity, the targeted assassinations, the summary executions, all of this speaks to a growing impunity…. South Africa condemned rocket attacks, but it also condemned military incursions and road closures that would not even let ambulances enter areas to care for those injured in such military actions.”

A professor from the School of Oriental Studies, London, contended that Israel is legally responsible for the situation in Gaza, in spite of its disengagement, because it controls “a significant portion of Gaza’s tax revenue, its airspace, its offshore territory, and importantly, ingress and egress from the area.”

Another Palestinian Authority official said that “[w]hen it comes to the Palestinians, apparently no United Nations resolution will be implemented and action at the world body will be stymied by the use of the United States veto power. Israel does not want a peaceful settlement.”

The Executive Director of the Institute for Development Studies, a former official of the Palestinian Authority, said that Palestinians had given up hope of finding an “honest broker. International engagement was needed to promote dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian side.”

The next speaker was the only person to make even a very slight reference to the initiation of terror by the Palestinians. Ran Cohen, a Meretz Member of the Knesset, delivered what was most certainly the understatement of the Conference: “People do not like to talk peace with those who kill civilians.” Terror, he said, had a very “negative effect” on Israelis’ perception of their Palestinian neighbors. He also complained about “Hamas’ continued stance of non-recognition of Israel.” Nevertheless, he said he “would try hard to press the current and next Israeli Government to open direct negotiations not only with the Palestinian side, but also with Syria and Lebanon.”

Cohen’s statement was most certainly offset by the next speaker, an American, Henry Siegman, of the Council on Foreign Relations’ US/Middle East Project. Siegman argued that “the unstated Israeli assumption [is] that the default position to peace was a continuation of the occupation.” What was needed, he said, “was a clear international declaration, which emphasized that without a solid agreement on a date for a new negotiated settlement, the default position would shift back to the pre-1967 border….” He urged “civil society actors to organize grassroots campaigns to promote the idea.”

Ahmed Maher, former Foreign Minister of Egypt and former Egyptian Ambassador to the United States, said that the international community “should be ashamed of the horror and deprivation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories…. Literally hundreds of United Nations edicts and resolutions had gone unimplemented.”

The final major speaker was Dumisani Kumalo, South Africa’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations in New York. Given Ambassador Kumalo’s leadership position in the anti-Israel effort at the United Nations, and South Africa’s  current status as a Non-Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, his statement deserves special attention:

The fact that the question of Palestine is still so high on the United Nations agenda is itself some measure of the international community’s successful engagement in the issue. The fact that that vigorous attention has yet to produce a State of Palestine does not necessarily mean failure. … South Africa will continue to fight in the General Assembly and the Security Council to keep the Palestinian issue on the agenda.

During the discussion that followed, Kumalo emphasized that “the United Nations is changing—incrementally, but changing nonetheless.”

The “Civil Society” Forum

Every CEIRPP Conference gives a platform to invited Non-Governmental Organizations that are invariably unfriendly to Israel. In an opening statement, the Speaker of the Pretoria City Council expressed South Africa’s concern about “Israel’s ongoing collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”

Leading off the discussion was Amajd Atallah, President of the Strategic Assessments Initiative of Washington, DC.  He emphasized that “[i]t would simply be impossible for Israel to indefinitely continue occupying territories it took in war in 1967 without the political, economic and military support of the United States.” He added that “other hindrances included the collapse of the Palestinian national movement, the failure so far of the American Jewish community to provide a counterweight to the minority voices that tend to dominate the American political landscape, and the failure of both American Arabs and Jews to launch a coherent unified counterstrategy of their own. Simply put, advocates on all sides have not yet tried in a comprehensive and systematic manner to provide freedom, self-determination and peace as United States national interests.” 

Another American activist took this opportunity to launch a vigorous verbal attack on the United States. Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies condemned the U.S. “drive for empire, which was not dissimilar to the urges of empires of old.” Palestinian territory, she said, was “doubly occupied: Israel was occupying the land, and the United States was using that occupation to promote its aims in the region.” As she saw it, “the United States was using a heavily weaponized Israel as its de facto military outpost and base of operations in the Middle East.”

Among other discussants at the “Civil Society” Forum was the former Communications Director to Palestinian President Abbas, who said that (a) the key issue “around which all actors should be mobilizing was Israel’s attempt to replace one people with another, chiefly through expansion of settlements,” and (b) Palestinians under occupation are “too fearful to mobilize against Israel.” 

Gideon Levy of Ha’aretz, who had already spoken as an “expert,” appeared again, as a representative of “Civil Society,” declaring that “Israel never seemed to learn lessons without violence, and that “every Israeli is involved in the occupation, either because of blindness or ignorance.”

In concluding remarks the “Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations in New York” underlined the theme that had been emphasized throughout the Conference: the alleged parallel between the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The experience of the fight against apartheid, he said, could offer “lessons on how a movement can be built in the United States to pressure that Government to change its stance on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”  

Conclusion

Under its Charter the UN is committed to the cause of international peace and security. UN conferences like the Pretoria conference, which are dedicated solely to the castigation of Israel, serve only to undermine the basic purposes of the UN: they encourage extremist Palestinians, who participate in or support a resort to violence. These conferences discourage those Palestinians who support a two-state solution and seek a peaceful accommodation with Israel 


Hon. Richard Schifter (Chair), Norman Gelman (Vice Chair), Marjorie Sonnenfeldt (Vice Chair), Michael Alter (Secretary), Benjamin Schlesinger (Treasurer), Prof. Yonah Alexander, Maurice Atkin, Irwin Baskind, Dottie Bennett, Paul Berger, Gerald Charnoff, Rabbi George Driesen, Hon. Stuart Eizenstat, Edith U. Fierst, Allan Gerson, Hon. Joseph Gildenhorn, Hon. Benjamin Gilman, Norman Goldstein, Prof. Oscar Gray, Eric Greenberg, Stephen Horblitt, Hon. Max M. Kampelman, Luis Landau, Wendy Matheson, Prof. Joseph Mendels, Walter Nathan, Hon. Nicholas Rostow, Richard P. Schifter, Harris Schoenberg, Henry Sherman, Stuart Sloame, Saul I. Stern, Leon Weintraub, Russell Wilson, Beverly Zweiben

 
   

  
 


  



   











 8