American Jewish International Relations Institute

AJIRI Report #14     								        July 2007	

THE UN BLAMES ISRAEL FOR FATAH-HAMAS ARMED CONFLICT


SUMMARY

Hamas gained control of Gaza on June 14, after 218 Palestinians were killed and 910 injured in weeks of armed clashes with Fatah.  After avoiding comment for more than a month as Hamas and Fatah battled in the streets of Gaza,  the principal UN organ purportedly promoting the welfare of the Palestinians finally took up the Fatah-Hamas armed conflict, and concluded – nearly three weeks after Hamas forcibly took control of Gaza --  that Israel is to blame for the escalating violence.

Israeli actions  “rendered the Palestinian Authority nearly dysfunctional and contributed to the polarization within the Palestinian society and the tragic military events of the last weeks in the Gaza Strip,”  according to the formal statement issued July 3 by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP). 

On June 7, at the height of the Hamas-Fatah battle, the CEIRPP had met in a session officially convened to note the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War.  Averting their eyes from the conflict then raging between Palestinian factions, CEIRPP’S officers (Senegal, Cuba, Afghanistan and Malta) formally declared that Israel’s occupation violated many UN Security Council Resolutions, and that 40 years of Israeli occupation had led to an escalating spiral of violence in the area.

It was not until nearly a month later – on July 3, three weeks after Hamas had taken over Gaza – that the CEIRPP focused on the Hamas-Fatah conflict – but only to blame Israel for the internecine Palestinian battle.

CEIRPP’s performance in June 2007 demonstrates once again that it is not focused on assisting Palestinians.  The sole objective of this Committee of the UN General Assembly is to demonize Israel.

The UN’s Anti-Israel Chorus:  Highlights of CEIRPP’S June 7 meeting

While CEIRPP’s brief July 3 meeting was devoted largely to blaming Israel for the Fatah-Hamas clash, its June 7 session gave opportunity for 15 UN members to vent against Israel – notably avoiding any direct mention of the violent Hamas-Fatah conflict then raging in Gaza.  These included 8 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and two states led by old-fashioned Communists: Cuba and Nicaragua.  It is noteworthy that Mexico was among the other 5 UN members that took the floor to criticize Israel.

Speaker after speaker at the June 7 meeting promoted the line that Israeli occupation is the cause of all the Palestinians’ problems – including their resort to violence among themselves as well as the violence they direct at Israel.  Israel is invariably described as the aggressor, with Palestinians as victims who must act in self-defense.  

What is most striking about the statements delivered at the CEIRPP meetings is the distortion of relevant facts:  e.g., UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was carefully and deliberately framed so as to leave the determination of boundaries to future negotiations, is depicted as mandating a return to the 1949 armistice lines.  

It is also notable that many speakers called for UN Security Council action against Israel.

The opening statement of the Chairman of CEIRPP, Ambassador Badji, demonstrates how this UN body stands in the way of attaining Israeli-Palestinian peace.  Badji represents the UN as well as a respected country, Senegal.  Whether he believes what he is saying is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the script he read plays a key role in a comprehensive disinformation effort in which UN fora are used to spread grossly incorrect ideas about Israel across the globe, an effort designed to delegitimize Israel internationally.
Without acknowledging any of Israel’s efforts to attain peace (such as Barak’s acceptance of the Clinton Proposal of January 2001), Badji declared that “the occupation has driven thousands of Palestinians to resist;” “few people have suffered more constant misery and daily oppression in the last 40 years than Palestinians;” and “the occupation had destroyed what little progress had been achieved by the Palestinians.” 

A statement by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority was read to the group; it similarly failed to advance the cause of peace:  “Instead of complying with the law, Israel had acted with impunity, denying the rights of the Palestinian people.  The basis of all unlawful Israeli policies had been Israel's insatiable desire for expansionism.  While the Palestinian side had affirmed its commitment to the peace process, Israel had historically evaded peace efforts.”  Those who long for an Israeli-Palestinian peace need to hope that this statement does not truly reflect the views of the man now engaged in peace discussions with Israel.  Counter-intuitive as it may seem, Abbas has to sound belligerent to fit into the spirit of a UN meeting dealing with Israel and the Palestinians.

Cuba, one of the principal leaders of the anti-Israel campaign at the UN, contended that the Israeli occupation was in violation of UNSC Res. 242, among others.  It reiterated its support for an independent Palestinian State, “based on pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as the right of return home of the Palestinian refugees.”

Pakistan spoke of “the gross failure of the Security Council to fulfill its responsibility to maintain peace, as well as the collective failure of States to bring a just solution to that most grave political dispute.  The fate of Jerusalem had transformed the conflict into a powerful political and emotional issue for millions of people across the world, especially in the Islamic world.”  Pakistan warned that excavation work around the Al-Aqsa Mosque threatened its collapse.  To bring peace, Pakistan called on Israel to halt the violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Morocco’s representative noted that many Palestinians were refugees who awaited the exercise of their right to return home.  He said that the Palestinian economy had been destroyed, many families lived below the poverty line and lacked educational and health services.  The Israeli army carried out military actions, destroyed houses and imposed serious restrictions on movement.   He urged the Security Council and the international community “to end the tragedy that had lasted for too long.”

The representative of Egypt read a letter from President Mubarak calling for final status negotiations within the peace initiative of the League of Arab States, aiming at the full withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Arab Territories in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon to the pre-1967 borders, as well as achievement of an acceptable solution to the Palestinian refugees problem.  Until that objective was achieved, Mubarak said, the international community and the Committee should work hand in hand to make sure that Israel ceased its unlawful acts against the Palestinian people. 

Madagascar reiterated its solidarity with” the oppressed Palestinian people.”  Its representative said: “With its 500 checkpoints, the Palestinian Occupied Territory had been transformed into an immense virtual prison.”

Turkey’s statement, although by no means balanced, nevertheless stands out in recognizing faults on the Palestinian side.  It was critical, Turkey said, to preserve understanding and unity among the Palestinian factions, and crucial for the Palestinian Government to respond to developments through a political platform that embraced the Quartet principles.  Efforts to allow the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldier should be intensified.  At the same time, we must also reiterate our strong stance against violence and all acts of terror, no matter from where it emanates, Turkey concluded.

With Malaysia taking the floor, the meeting returned to extremism.  Israel, according to the Malaysian representative “continued to flout international law and ignore calls to halt violence.  It had destroyed civilian infrastructure and strangled the livelihoods of innocent people.  Thousands of Palestinians had been imprisoned and construction of the wall continued, despite international condemnation….It was shameful to explain to present and future generations how occupation could continue in a modern world.  The lack of political will to push Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions and other international norms gave the impression that the world lacked seriousness to resolve the conflict.” 

South Africa’s statement was among the most extreme delivered at this meeting.  Its representative declared that the Palestinian people had been leading an intolerable life for more than 60 years.  In the 40 years that followed the 1967 war, Palestinians had suffered every imaginable violation.”  The final document adopted at CEIRPP’s May 2007 meeting in Pretoria “had concluded that the situation of human rights abuses and discriminatory practices committed against the Palestinian people by the Israeli occupying forces constituted war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.”

He added that the UN, particularly the Security Council, carries a special responsibility to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  This marked the fortieth year of Israel's defiance of Council resolution 242 (1967), which had called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from territories it occupied after the 1967 war.  It is time for the UN to accept that Israel continued to reject with impunity all resolutions by both the General Assembly and the Security Council, and that could not be allowed to continue for another 40 years.  “Perhaps it was time for the international community to consider other alternatives to bring about peace, especially in light of the Arab League's recent reaffirmation of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.”
 
Brazil’s statement was less one-sided.  While it condemned “unilateral initiatives and acts of disproportionate reprisal,” it repudiated terrorism, which was “unacceptable and unjustifiable in any case.”  It expressed concern over the launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip against civilian targets in the Israeli city of Sderot.   All parties needed to work to build suitable conditions for ending the conflicts.  Dismantling the security wall, freezing Israeli settlement construction, reducing physical obstacles to movement in the West Bank, and releasing detained Palestinian Government officials and legislators would reduce tensions in the region.  Brazil also appealed for the liberation of the Israeli soldier and the British journalist, as an additional confidence-building measure.

Mexico’s representative said that the acquisition of territory by force was inadmissible and created no rights.  For that reason, Mexico supported the land-for-peace formula for negotiations.  The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 2004 on the construction of the wall was a valid legal determination that would help find a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Terrorism would always be morally reprehensible, and dialogue required an absolute renunciation of such practices.  Yet, 
Mexico opposed the use of force beyond that used in self-defense and in a proportional response, he said, calling for respect of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protected civilians during wartime. 

Indonesia, a current member of the UN Security Council, used its statement to criticize the Council for failing to search for a solution to the Palestinian issue.  Progress towards peace had been difficult because the Security Council had demonstrated little interest in compelling Israel to fulfill its obligations under Security Council resolutions.  It might even be said that Israel was emboldened and encouraged by the Council's attitude.  Its occupation of Palestinian territory had made the situation in the Middle East the most volatile situation on the globe today.   Indonesia condemned the harsh militaristic policies of Israel, which contravene the international law.

Bangladesh said the occupation of East Jerusalem by Israel, as well as the issue of Palestine, were the root causes for the spiraling violence and hostilities in the Middle East, the shockwaves of which were being felt around the globe.    It is unfortunate that Israel, in brazen violation of the standing United Nations resolutions aimed at preserving the sanctity of the holy city of Jerusalem, is unabatedly carrying out its illegal activities with impunity, in the utter disrespect for the religious sentiment of the Muslims all around the world. The recent demolition of a historic road and excavation works below the Al-Aqsa compound were outrageous and would cast serious doubt on Israel's sincerity to resume the peace process.

Tunisia’s statement, while more moderate than those of other Arab states, said that all terrorism in the region was attributable to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which fed extremism and deepened violence in the Middle East.  Tunisia supported the Palestinians in their fight to restore their rights.  It supported a just peace, which required the restoration of Palestinians' rights and would end Israel’s aggression against people and infrastructure.  

Nicaragua’s representative said that numerous initiatives and resolutions over the years had not been able to end the suffering of the Palestinian people and to deliver to them their inalienable rights because of the occupying Power's disrespect for international law, international humanitarian law and human rights.  He was concerned about recent events that could lead to further deterioration, as well as about the serious humanitarian situation, as a result of the illegal practices of the occupying Power and its continuing violations of the right to life.  

Sri Lanka’s representative said that for more than 40 years, Palestinians had undergone civil hardship and their human rights had been continually violated under Israeli military occupation.  There was no end in sight, which was a matter of deep concern to all peaceful people.
 

Additional anti-Israel statements were delivered by a representative of Amnesty International; delegates from three Palestinian organizations; and two Jewish Israelis, including the Executive Director of B'Tselem.   It seems that the organizers of these UN meetings are making a special effort to find and bring to the meetings Jewish Israelis who are prepared to deliver vehement statements against their Government.



















 5