American Jewish International Relations Institute AJIRI Report #10a November 2006 darfur and gaza: new heights of un hypocrisy During the month of November 2006, the United Nations focused, briefly, on the crisis in Darfur and, at length, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It failed to take meaningful action to advance the cause of peace and international security in Darfur. But a majority of Security Council members, including three permanent members, namely China, France, and Russia was ready to do serious harm to the cause of international security by seeking to prevent Israel from exercising its right of self-defense against rocket attacks from Gaza. It was the exercise of the U.S. veto that prevented such harm. As the month comes to a close, there is at least a glimmer of hope of a truce holding in Gaza precisely because the U.S. veto prevented the UN from seriously damaging efforts to end the strife. (1) The Darfur Conflict: no meaningful action to limit the disaster Serious hostilities broke out in Darfur in July 2003, caused primarily by a conflict over land and water between camel-herding Arabs and soil-tilling black Africans. The former have been armed by the Government of Sudan and have had the support of the Sudanese air force. To date more than 400,000 Darfurians have been killed in a program that the United States has characterized as genocide, and more than 2,000, 000 have been left homeless. On August 31, 2006, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution authorizing the establishment of a UN peacekeeping force. The Government of Sudan has rejected the resolution and declared that it would regard such a UN force as foreign invaders. The UN has not taken any action to enforce its resolution, even though, under the UN Charter, it is binding on the Government of Sudan. On November 22, the UN Security Council met to consider the status of the Darfur conflict and heard a full report from Jan Egeland, the UN Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator (who is about to leave office). The following are excerpts from his report (emphasis added): “For more than a thousand days and a thousand nights, the defenceless civilians of Darfur have been in fear for their lives, and the lives of their children.  The [Sudanese] Government’s failure to protect its own citizens even in areas where there are no rebels, has been shameful and continues.  So does our own failure, more than a year after world leaders in this very building pledged their own responsibility to protect civilians where the Government manifestly fails to do so. “There is a need to immediately stop all attacks, and for the cessation of hostilities and respect for the ceasefire by all parties before an entire generation of young men is enlisted in the fighting.  Villages, camps and communities outside the urban centres of Darfur are again being burnt and looted.  Women and children are raped and killed with impunity. …  In the Jebel Marra, where the nights were freezing, the attackers looted food, clothing and blankets.  That means that babies and small children who survived the attacks might now freeze to death.  Let us be clear:  these acts are crimes of the most despicable kind.  They are an affront to humanity…. “The next weeks may be make or break for our lifeline to more than 3 million people.  This period may well be the last opportunity for this Council, the Government of the Sudan, the African Union, the rebels, and all of us to avert a humanitarian disaster of much larger proportions than even the one we so far have witnessed in Darfur.”  After hearing this dire report of “crimes of the most despicable kind,” the members of the UN Security Council offered no ideas for action, but simply engaged in inconclusive speechifying. The UK said “it was hard to comprehend … why fighting continued.” Congo observed that the motivation of the attackers “remained unknown.” Argentina declared that “the international community must rise to the challenge” but failed to suggest how that was to be done. Denmark said that a “robust and efficient force on the ground was the only way forward” but failed to say what should be done about the Sudanese rejection of such a force. Japan said the current situation was “unacceptable.” France said that the Darfur crisis would not be resolved “unless regional implications are taken into consideration.” China hoped “all parties would grasp the historic opportunities and solve the problem of Darfur.” Qatar said that “it was regrettable to see the deterioration of the situation.” Russia declared there was no doubt “that the main reason for the unfortunate situation is that the conflicts remained unresolved,” a truly profound observation. The U.S. noted that it would work with partners to end the violence in Darfur. The Security Council meeting adjourned without any discussion of next steps. The issue was taken up on November 28 by the UN Human Rights Council, which passed a toothless resolution calling “on all parties” to end human rights violations, without mentioning the Government of Sudan. An cautiously-worded amendment that spoke merely of the “primary responsibility” of Sudan to protect individuals against such violations was voted down, albeit by a narrow margin, 22 to 20. (2) The Gaza Clashes: seeking to prevent Israel from defending its citizens (a) Palestinian Rocket Attacks and Israel’s Response Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005. Shortly thereafter Palestinians began to be launch rockets from Gaza, targeting civilian populations in the Israeli town of Sderot and elsewhere. In June 2006 these attacks were taken a step further, with a Hamas raid into Israel, in which two Israeli soldiers were killed and a third abducted. Since then, the Israeli army has responded to these attacks with incursions into the Gaza area for the specific and limited purpose of destroying rocket launchers and preventing the further build-up of arms supplies and ammunition smuggled into Gaza from the Sinai. On November 8, Israel responded to another round of rocket-firing with a tank fire barrage. One round of shelling targeted an orange grove that concealed a rocket launcher. However, the malfunctioning of an aiming device on an Israeli gun caused a round of shells to hit houses in Beit Hanoun, about a quarter-mile from the orange grove, killing 18 civilians. Prime Minister Olmert immediately declared that he was “very distressed” by this error and pledged a prompt investigation. (b) November 8 -- The Secretary-General’s “Shock” Within hours of the Beit Hanoun incident and before a full investigation could be mounted, the Office of the UN Secretary-General, released a statement critical of Israel: “The Secretary-General was shocked to learn about the Israeli military operation carried out early today in a residential area in Beit Hanoun, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 18 Palestinians, including 8 children and 7 women.  He extends his condolences to the bereaved families of the victims. “Only last Friday, the Secretary-General expressed his deep concern about the rising death toll caused by the Israeli military operation in northern Gaza, given that such operations inevitably cause civilian casualties.  The Secretary-General reminds both sides of their obligations under international humanitarian law regarding the protection of civilians in armed conflict.” The Secretary-General reiterates his call to the Israeli Government to cease its military operations in Gaza without delay, and calls on the Palestinian side to also halt attacks against Israeli targets.” (c) November 9 -- The Security Council Meets to Castigate Israel The Security Council was promptly convened. It met the next day, on November 9. The UN Secretariat led off with a one-sided attack against Israel by Angela Kane, the Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs: “The incident that occurred in Beit Hanoun on Wednesday is shocking. Men, women and children, who posed no threat, were killed as they slept in their home.” Thereafter forty members of the UN used this session to issue statements on Israel’s self-defense actions in Gaza, many of them focusing on the November 8 incident and expressing outrage against Israel. The representative of Israel stated at the outset of the discussion “that a tragic event had occurred during the escalation of the situation in Gaza, following the ongoing terrorist attacks against Israel and [Israel’s] response in self-defense. Israel regretted the deaths of innocent civilians and was deeply saddened by [this] heartbreaking occurrence.” The United States was the only UN member to speak in support of Israel’s position. Fourteen members of the Arab League, including Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco, took the lead in sharp verbal attacks on Israel. Azerbaijan condemned Israel in the name of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, while Cuba did so on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Argentina gave the most vehemently anti-Israel statement by a non-OIC member. Peru also delivered strongly anti-Israel remarks. China echoed the statements critical of Israel for having caused civilian casualties. Japan’s statement was somewhat more evenhanded. Among other UN member states speaking at this meeting was Sudan (!), which expressed concern that “Israeli practices included increased killing of Palestinians and the incarceration and mistreatment of many more.” Libya added that “the double standard applied to Israeli atrocities, such as the one committed yesterday at Beit Hanoun, degraded the credibility of the Security Council.” (d) November 11 -- The U.S. Vetoes a Resolution to Restrict Israel from Defending Itself Two days later, the Security Council met again to vote on an unbalanced resolution that directed Israel to end its self-defense efforts against attacks from Gaza. Ten members of the Council voted for the text that called upon “Israel, the occupying Power, to immediately cease its military operations that endanger the Palestinian civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to immediately withdraw its forces from within the Gaza Strip to positions prior to 28 June 2006.” Under the UN Charter, such a Security Council resolution is a binding directive which, if violated, can be enforced by economic sanctions or even by armed force. A Council majority, which was unwilling to take effective action on the crisis in Darfur supported this resolution against Israel, ignoring the fact that Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza have operated out of civilian areas, using civilians as human shields -- while the Israeli army has operated in Gaza since June 2006 precisely to minimize civilian casualties while fighting the terrorists. What is striking about the November 11 draft resolution is that it hits at Israel with highly precise and potentially enforceable language: “to immediately withdraw its forces … to positions prior to 28 June, 2006.” Although the text calls “upon the Palestinian Authority to take immediate and sustained action to bring an end to violence, including the firing of rockets on Israeli territory,” one could easily have predicted the response of the Palestinian Authority if the text had been adopted: “We would like to do it, but we lack the power to do so.” Voting for this unbalanced text were Argentina, China, Congo, France, Ghana, Greece, Peru, Qatar, Russia, and Tanzania. Abstaining were Denmark, Japan, Slovakia, and the UK. The United States voted “no” and thus exercised its veto. (e) November 15 -- The Human Rights Council Meets for More Attacks on Israel The failure to win Security Council approval did not deter those who seek to restrict Israel’s self-defense from using other UN fora to continue their campaign. On November 15, the UN Human Rights Council, which has held two regular sessions since it began operations in June 2006, was called into its third special session (all three of the Council’s special sessions have so far dealt only with Israel). As expected, the Council passed another anti-Israel resolution. The resolution (a) expressed “shock and horror” at Israel’s “targeting and killing” of Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanoun while they were asleep; (b) condemned such killing and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice; (c) denounced Israel’s destruction of homes in Beit Hanoun, (d) expressed alarm at Israel’s gross and systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people, (e) called for immediate protection of Palestinian civilians, and (f) called for the dispatch of a high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun. The usual anti-Israel speeches were heard. Deserving of special attention was the statement of that great champion of human rights, North Korea, which declared its serious concern “about the gross human rights violations committed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and strongly condemned these transgressions.” The vote on the resolution was 32 “yes,” 8 “no,” 6 abstaining, and I absent. The major changes from the previous voting pattern were (1) Djibouti, Ghana, Mexico and Nigeria voted “yes” (moving from abstain or absent), (2) France and Ukraine abstained (moving from “no”), so did Guatemala (moving from “yes”), Cameroon was absent (having previously abstained). (f) November 17 – The General Assembly, in Emergency Session, Adopts an anti-Israel Resolution, with European Support Following two UN Security Council meetings and one meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, the Arab League took the further step of calling the UN General Assembly, all 192 members, into session for further castigation of Israel with regard to the Beit Hanoun incident. (This is easily done through a device established at the conclusion of the first meeting of the General Assembly’s “Tenth Emergency Special Session,” a session dealing exclusively with Israel that is never finally adjourned. It held its first meeting in 1997 and, at the conclusion of each meeting, adjourns only “temporarily,” allowing member states to call it back into session at any time.) Thus, the UN General Assembly met on November 17 for another Israel-bashing event. It adopted a non-binding resolution very similar to the Security Council Resolution vetoed by the United States six days earlier. Being non-binding, the resolution’s basic purpose was to demonstrate the so-called “international community’s” dissent from the position taken by the United States. The resolution’s only operative provision called upon the Secretary-General to establish a fact-finding mission on the “attack that took place in Beit Hanoun.” Thus, two such missions have been authorized, one by the Human Rights Council, the other by the General Assembly. The vote was 156 “yes,” 7 “no,” 6 “abstain,” and 23 absent. Most of the absences appear to have been intentional. What was most troublesome about this vote is that the EU and thus all Europeans voted “yes.” The United States and Israel were joined in the “no” vote by Australia, and four of the Pacific Island states: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Abstaining were Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, and four other Pacific Island states: Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Absent were 12 sub-Saharan African states: Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sao tome and Principe, Seychelles, and Uganda; 3 Central American states, Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Nicaragua; 3 Caribbean states: Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; 3 Pacific Island states, Fiji, Kiribati, and Samoa; as well as Sri Lanka, and Turkmenistan. Conclusion “The next weeks may be make or break for our lifeline to more than 3 million people.” This was the serious warning of the UN Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, delivered on November 22, with reference to Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have died in the last three years, and where the Government of Sudan is responsible for most of the deaths. The Council took no action. A few days later, the fighting in Darfur spread westward into Chad. The Secretary-General condemned “any attempt to seize power by force’ and urged “the Chadian protagonists to engage in dialogue.” He made no reference to the fact that those who seek power in Chad had the support of the Government of Sudan. The widening of the Darfur war into Chad appeared not to be of interest to the UN Security Council. By contrast, ignoring the fate of hundreds of thousands of Africans, the UN spent the month of November focusing on the tragic mistake that killed 18 Palestinians on November 8. UN bodies held four meetings to discuss the matter and passed three resolutions attempting to restrict Israel’s right of self-defense. Only when that effort had failed, were Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas able, without UN help, to arrange a somewhat fragile Gaza truce that took effect on November 26. Members of the Al-Aqsa Brigade have violated that truce, but as the number of rockets launched in recent days has been substantially fewer than in the immediately preceding period, the Israeli army responds only when its sees that a rocket is about to be launched. The truce did not stop the UN Human Rights Council, when it met in regular session on November 27, from adopting two more anti-Israel resolutions, on Golan and settlements, respectively. In the five month in which the Council has been in existence it has adopted six resolutions directed against Israel. AJIRI Board of Directors: 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, Joel Hoppenstein, 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   2