Source: http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20081203_354.html http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20081203_354.html
Date: December 3, 2008

USUN PRESS RELEASE #   354(08)
December 12, 2008 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Office of Press and Public Diplomacy 
United States Mission to the United Nations 
140 East 45th Street 
New York, N.Y. 10017

Statement by Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, United States Deputy Permanent Representative, on the Libyan Vessel, in the Security Council Chamber, December 3, 2008 

Thank you, Mr. President. We are confronted today by a most unusual situation. The Council has been asked to meet by a Council member to react to a situation of its own making. Libya, a country that does not have relations with Israel, which can’t even acknowledge its existence in the letter it sent to the Council that brought the issue under consideration to our attention, and which has an openly hostile attitude toward Israel took the remarkable step of attempting to send one of its vessels through waters patrolled by Israel off Gaza in an attempt to land at a port which is not open to international maritime trade. 
Given the current heightened international sensitivity to unpredictable and uncoordinated maritime activity, what country around this table would not have reacted as the Israeli Navy did in this case? The way Libya went about this was dangerous and irresponsible. Mr. President, to the best of my knowledge the Charter unfortunately has no provision to deal with the folly of states. 
Mr. President this is not a meeting about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. However, if the objective of the Libya action had been seriously to provide assistance to the people of Gaza, there are several ways to do so that do not involve such provocative, confrontational acts and that would certainly have had a greater chance of allowing that assistance to get through. The manner in which Libya chose seems almost designed to guarantee that the assistance would not be delivered.
Now there are several viable alternatives used by every other state interested in providing assistance. First, member states can directly approach the Palestinian Authority, the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, and inquire about how best to deliver their proposed assistance. 
The Arab League Council, for its part, issued a November 26 statement calling on Arab countries to send humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip and assigned specific responsibility to the Arab League Secretariat to coordinate with the Egyptian and Jordanian authorities to ensure the entry of that assistance to Gaza. Why did the Libyan authorities not coordinate this in that manner? We are specifically aware, for example, of a shipment of Jordanian assistance that was successfully transferred through the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza on November 27. 
Second, member states seeking to provide assistance to the people of Gaza can work through the existing institutions and programs of the United Nations that have the mandate and the capacity to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza. These UN institutions include UNRWA, OCHA, and the World Food Program. 
One is therefore left with the impression that provocation and perhaps even propaganda was the intended objective of the Libyan vessel’s activity. The real lesson here is the need to avoid the repetition of such irresponsible action in how assistance is delivered. Under the circumstances, with the terrorist group Hamas controlling Gaza and perpetrating repeated violence and acts of terrorism against Israel, it is fortunate this incident of Libya’s making did not escalate. 
Our understanding from media accounts emerging from Tripoli is that after Israeli vessels turned the Libyan vessel back on Monday, the Libyan vessel tried once again to enter the port on Tuesday without Israel’s consent. Under these circumstances, Israel was justified in escorting the vessel beyond the territorial sea and into international waters. It cannot be said that Israel’s actions constituted piracy under the Law of the Sea Convention. Piracy has a very specific meaning under international law, including that the act been by a private ship for private ends. It is absurd to assert Israel committed an act of piracy. 
Indeed, the Israeli navy simply approached the vessel, flagged by a hostile state, and instructed it to turn around and not continue in Gazan waters. It then ensured that it did not return to its original course. The Israeli navy fired no shots and did not insist on boarding the Libyan vessel. 
Mechanisms are clearly in place—as I have mentioned—for the transfer of humanitarian assistance to Gaza by member states that truly want to do so. These non-provocative and non-confrontational mechanisms should be the ones used. Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible under the circumstances.
The United Nations recently issued a Consolidated Appeal for the West Bank and Gaza for $462 million, to help the people of Gaza and we would encourage all member states to respond generously.
Finally, let us not forget the underlying reason this humanitarian crisis exists. The legitimate Palestinian government’s authority was usurped in the Gaza Strip by the terrorist organization Hamas. Their instigation of violence through the construction of surreptitious tunnels from Gaza into Israeli territory of the type used to kidnap and kill Israeli soldiers; their indiscriminate rocket attacks on southern Israel and on the established humanitarian aid crossing points all continue. 
The Palestinian representative’s lengthy prepared remarks would have enjoyed more credibility if he would have been able simply to repeat his leadership’s own known views on this. Once this situation-- created by Hamas—is addressed, we are confident the humanitarian suffering resulting directly from Hamas’s illegal acts will also be remedied. 
Thank you, Mr. President.