The prelude:  On Wednesday, a group of Palestinian protesters stood in front of the UN Office in Ramallah, and also apparently an UNRWA office in Ramallah as well, disrupting work for the day.   In Geneva, a smaller group took signs and went down to the UN Office in Geneva to explain the reason for the protest outside the Ramallah office.

Then: later on Wednesday,  at UN Headquarters in New York, the spokesman for UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon issued a statement in the UNSG’s name saying that he “stressed the importance of averting any further deterioration in the condition of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody who are on hunger strike, and urged everyone concerned to reach a solution to their plight without delay.  ‘The Secretary-General continues to follow with concern the ongoing hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody, in particular those held in what is known as administrative detention’, according to information provided by his spokesperson.  ‘He stresses the importance of averting any further deterioration in their condition’, the spokesperson added. ‘He reiterates that those detained must be charged and face trial with judicial guarantees, or released without delay‘.”  [emphasis added]

This is posted on the UN website here.

After that: today [Thursday], the UNSG’s Special Coordinator Robert Serry, reportedly visited the Palestinian president in Ramallah.  In any case, Serry also stopped with his entourage for a sandwich on the sunny terrace of Pronto, one of Ramallah’s best bistro cafes, near the Ramallah municipality building. [This is only to say that life does go on...]

The ususal significance-laden generalities about this meeting: the UN reported on their news website “The hunger strike also came up for discussion during today’s meeting between the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO), Robert Serry, and the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, with both expressing the urgency of finding a solution for the issue, according to news release issued by Mr. Serry’s office. Mr. Serry reiterated the concern of the UN over the situation, as Mr. Abbas expressed his appreciation of the UN contribution to efforts to resolve the issue. The pair also discussed other issues of common interest, including the need for meaningful peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as internal Palestinian issues”… This is explained here.

[It is possible, though not known outside the innermost circles, that Serry may also have spoken of the protests at the UN Office in Ramallah, which may have been bothersomeve and disrupti, to some, but which were peaceful.]

The event itself: In any case, Palestinian leader [there is no other, at the moment] Mahmoud Abbas then made his first visit to the Solidarity tent opposite the Al-Bireh sweet shop, municipality and mosque.  Whereas weeks had been growning in the open field where the tents and flags and posters and rows of plastic chairs were set up, the field had been neatly covered in asphalt overnight.  It is not known if this was pure coincidence, or in preparation for the Abbas visit.

Context: In addition to Robert Serry, two other UN officials have spoke out about the plight of the 4,600 Palestinian prisoners, including the 308 or so who are in Administrative Detention, in which all evidence is secret, so no defense is possible.

The generic charge for Administrative Detention invariably is the vague accusation of posing a “threat to the security and peace of the region”.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Princeton University Professor Emeritus of International Law Richard Falk, has made a series of statements and has posted an analysis on his own blog, in addition to publishing opinion articles on a number of news sites.

UNRWA deserves special mention here:  The Commissioner-General of UNRWA, Filippo Grandi, also chimed in, though rather late in the day.  UNRWA in Ramallah was also affected by the protest shut down on Wednesday [9 May].

Handwritten sign in red held over UNRWA sign during protest Wednesday says “Closed: Freedom for OUR prisoners” – photo posted on Twitter here by @Occupy2gether

In a statement [prepared by a spokesperson of course], UNRWA noted, prudently in line with what was said in the name of UNSG BAN Ki-Moon, that “The Commissioner General of UNRWA, Filippo Grandi, is following with increasing concern the ongoing hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody, in particular, those held as administrative detainees. He echoes the calls of the Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, and Robert Serry, the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, to reach a solution without delay”.  This is statement is dated 11 May, and posted here.

UPDATE: It had earlier been reported that Grandi’s statement repeated exactly what UNSG BAN Ki-Moon’s had said, i.e. — “He reiterates that those detained must be charged and face trial with judicial guarantees, or released without delay“.

But, this significant sentence had been deleted by the time this post was written — at least, on the UNRWA website. Initially, this was confusing.

On Saturday morning, however, it was learned that this had indeed been part of the statement as first issued, in Grandi’s name, by at least one of the UNRWA spokespersons — but it was later deleted, and the briefer, more cautious version above was posted.   Thanks to the observations and research of Benjamin Doherty, published on the Electronic Intifada website, here, on 10 May, we can see that the full UNRWA statement as originally presented is this:

10 May 2012
Jerusalem

The Commissioner-General of UNRWA, Filippo Grandi, expressed his grave concern about the current medical and health conditions of the thousands of Palestinian political prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli prisons.

The Commissioner-General appealed to the Israeli government to find an acceptable solution, noting that the hunger strikers’ demands are generally related to the basic rights of prisoners, as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions.

Filippo Grandi reiterated the call of the Secretary-General of the United Nations that those under administrative detention be brought to trial or be set free, noting that two of the administrative detainees are in serious condition after more than 74 days, and are in imminent danger of death. [emphasis added here].

For more information, please contact:

Sami Mshasha
UNRWA Arabic Spokesperson
Mobile: +972 (0)54 216 8295
Office: +972 (0)2 589 0724
s.mshasha@unrwa.org

The research posted on Electronic Intifada is entitled: “UNRWA mysteriously removes top official’s statement on Israel’s treatment of hunger strikers“. But the word “mysteriously” is rather tongue-in-cheek, for it is not mysterious at all…

UPDATE: And, in any case, after all, the original version is still posted on the UN News Centre [the UN uses British English spelling] here, which, yes,  still reports that:

“‘Filippo Grandi reiterates the call of the Secretary-General of the United Nations that those under administrative detention be brought to trial or be set free, noting that two of the administrative detainees are in serious conditions after more than 74 days, and are in imminent danger of death’, an UNRWA spokesperson said in a statement“.

FURTHER UPDATE: An UNRWA official said on Sunday that he’ll get the UN News Centre in NY to “update their story”…

So much for UNRWA.

Separately, Ma’an News Agency reported that “Prison doctors have told Thaer Halahla that he could die at any moment after 72 days on hunger strike, his lawyer Mona Neddaf said Thursday. Neddaf visited Halahla, 33, in Ramle prison clinic on Thursday, the prisoner rights group Addameer said in a statement.  He is vomiting blood, bleeding from his gums and lips and has extremely low blood pressure, she said. His temperature is fluctuating at dangerous levels and the prison doctor said he also has an infection.  He has refused food since Feb. 29 and now weighs 55 kilograms. Israel has ignored calls by the European Union and the International Committee of the Red Cross to transfer long-term hunger-strikers to hospitals and to allow them family visits. Prison authorities on Wednesday canceled a visit from his family, scheduled for Thursday, but the detainee remains mentally strong, his lawyer said”.  This Ma’an News Agency report is posted here.

David Rose [whose April 2008 article in Vanity Fair about PA machinations is iconic] has reported in The Daily Mail that “The last letter Thaer Hahlaleh [sic] wrote to his wife Shireen was delivered by the Red Cross a few days before he began to refuse all nourishment on February 29. ‘My detention has so far been renewed seven times and they still haven’t charged me with anything … I can’t take any more. I am going on hunger strike because the situation has become unbearable’.” This is reported here.  Rose notes that “According to Shireen Hahlaleh, her husband has been held under administrative detention for more than six years in total”. 

Thaer Halahleh is 33 years old, and has been held for over six years of his live in a state of total uncertainty.

Rose also reports that Halahleh’s wife Shireen told him that her husband was arrested just before she gave birth to their only child:  ‘This time he was arrested in June 2010, two weeks before I was due to have our first child, our daughter Lamar …  ‘We were just getting ready for the birth.  Can you imagine the state of mind he left me in? The previous time they arrested him was 14 days after our wedding.  They seem to choose their moments carefully.  The baby has only seen her father six times. My husband has a young family. Why would he want death? He wants life. But he is desperate’.”

As this report indicates, Palestinian prisoners in Israel jails can send the occasional letter to their families, if they live in the West Bank [rather than in Gaza] via ordinary mail [Israeli prison service to Israeli postal service to Palestinian postal service], but they take months to arrive.

Meanwhile, families of Palestinian hunger strikers have no information, no family visits allowed, and an Israeli district court has said that Physicians for Human Rights-Israel [@PHR_IL] must appeal on case-by-case basis.

Resources are stretched thin, nerves on edge, information extremely limited + often late, and there are discrepancies in calculating durations – #PalHunger. [Just for example, are Halahleh and Diab on Day 72 or Day 73 of their open-ended hunger strike?  Depends on whether you count Feb 28 as whole day or not, and if not, Day 1 was Feb 29 etc]

Also meanwhile, journalists are confused about whether a time-limited hunger strike is as valid as an open-ended hunger strike.

Journalists are also confused about whether this issue of Palestinian hunger striking prisoners is something that touches a raw nerve in Palestinian society or, because the numbers of activists who demonstrate is relatively small, this is something that can be dismissed if not ignored.

In this matter, it might be useful to recall that while Israeli society has such an identification with its armed forces because every family has someone who is a soldier, the parallel for Palestinians is that almost every family has someone who is, or once was, a prisoner…

UPDATE TWO: For a personal eyewitness account of someone who was present in the Al-Bireh protest tent area when Mahmoud Abbas and his entourage showed up, read Linah Alsaafin’s account in Electronic Intifada, here.

Some 5 or 6 of the observers were to arrive within hours — Russia’s Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that one Russian would be coming from the Golan Heights [Syrian-claimed territory occupied by Israel since June 1967].

Another 20 military observers were supposed to be in Damascus within 24 hours.

Kofi Annan, former UNSG who now represents both the current UNSG BAN Ki-Moon and the Arab League, is due to present a more detailed plan by 18 April for a more substantial UN “supervising” mission in Syria.

Russia and China, who vetoed a previous proposed UNSC resolution on Syria, said that they could go along with this one because it respected Syrian government sovereignty…

Russia’s representative, Vitaly Churkin, complained at length however about hearing other representatives on the Security Council misrepresent the terms of the resolution — the

Syria’s representative Jaafari said that the resolution was not balanced, but added that his government would live with it because of the need to reestablish order in the country. Jaafari bitterly blamed outsiders — he named Saudi Arabia as one — for interfering, due to a long-standing rivalry between “Pan-Arabism and Political Islam”. And Jaafari blamed money coming from “Salafist and Wahhabi” sources for the acts of terror that he said have been committed by gangs operating throughout the country…

After both meetings, there was a press conference.

In Jerusalem with Netanyahu, BAN said “Settlements do not help the peace process… I told the prime minister that he should refrain from future construction”. [Just future construction? The goalposts keep getting moved...]

Netanyahu reportedly told BAN that the settlement issue must be discussed during negotiations, “it can’t be a precondition”… [So, the Palestinians need to negotiate about settlements? Somehow, this sounds different than just saying settlements are one of the final status issues in negotiations...]

According to the New York Times, “Mr. Netanyahu thanked Mr. Ban for his ‘good intentions’, but he said the settlement question should be dealt with as part of a final agreement. ‘It cannot be a precondition to enter into that agreement’, he said”. This is published here.

This NYTimes story added: “An Israeli official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue said Israel was ‘ready for mutual confidence-building measures in the framework of a peace process that is moving forward’ — in other words, as long as the measures came with guarantees that the Palestinians would stick with the talks. He would not specify what steps they might include. Another Israeli official said that in a closed meeting with Mr. Peres, Mr. Ban suggested that Israel, as the stronger party, should release Palestinian prisoners as one way of improving the atmosphere”…

In Ramallah with Abbas, BAN said “A viable Palestinian state is long overdue. I continue to believe a two-state solution is long overdue … The international community has been clear: all settlements are contrary to international law … [In the "exploratory" talks recently in Amman] the Palestinians have been forthcoming in producing proposals on territory + security, and I very much hope Israel will present their proposals. This is what I told Israeli leaders today”.

BAN also said, in answer to a question from the press, that “I fully share the Palestinians’ complaint that they have been under occupation for such a long time, suffering all these hardships without prospects of knowing when this will be over … We have wasted almost 20 years since Oslo … [But] negotiations is the best way to get results”.

Travelling with BAN was the former UN Special Envoy here, Terje Roed Larsen [who is still working on the Lebanon dossier]…

The long-serving Ambassador of the Observer Mission of Palestine, Riyad Mansour, was also present.

BAN added, in response to another question, that “On 23rd September I received the Palestinian application for UN membership, and I immediately conveyed it to the UN Security Council. I made it immediately clear that I fully support the aspiration of the Palestinian people to become a UN member within the framework of two states … it’s still in the hands of the UN Security Council”.

Abbas told BAN: “Mr. Secretary-General, I hope to be able to host you soon in an independent state”…

But, Abbas said, in response to a question from the press, that “We toured the whole world to get 9 votes in the UN Security Council, though I knew at the end that we faced the veto … Unfortunately, we did not achieve our goal of getting 9 votes … At some point we will review all our steps in the near future”.

He also said there was “a need to stop the campaign of arrests” and to free detained parliamentarians”…

Abbas, in his remarks, did not insult the Quartet … instead, he offered a light but rather indistinct compliment.

The Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat was seated in the front row, during the press conference [next to Terje Roed Larsen], and PLO Executive Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi was there as well.

“In the end”, Abbas said, I wish to assert that what we want is a two-state solution within the 1967 borders, and the need to end the Israeli presence on all our territory, including the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem”.

[Last week, at the end of the 5th "exploratory meeting" in Amman in which Israeli + Palestinian negotiators sat together for the first time a long time, an Israeli envoy made sweepingly broad indications of Israel's territorial interests -- and said Israel wanted to keep a security presence along the Jordan River...]

Tomorrow, BAN is going to Gaza in the morning, and will address the Herzliya Conference at 8 PM, before flying back to New York after midnight.

[Earlier on this trip away from New York, the UNSG was in Ethiopia; Davos, Switzerland, and Amman...]

At the same time, tens of thousands of Palestinians came together in central squares of major West Bank cities to watch the speech, despite an unexpected September rain and cool weather. They were electrified, transported, that Mahmoud Abbas actually went through with what he said he would do: apply to the UN Security Council to ask for full UN membership for the state of Palestine — because, as Mahmoud Abbas argued, it is their right, and they deserve it.

[In 1988, after the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] read a Declaration of Independence at a meeting of the PLO’s Palestine National Council in Algiers in November 1988. In the aftermath, the UN General Assembly took note of the Declaration, and upgraded the PLO from observer national liberation movement to observer organization. At the time, in 1988, the PLO was going to ask for a seat for Palestine in the UN General Assembly hall — even if they would have to leave it symbolically vacant. But, they backed down, in the face of certain international opposition.

The Palestinian leadership could have have asked for UN membership decades ago. But, by waiting, this “UN bid” has been made by the PLO’s Provisional Government, which is the PLO Executive Committee — not by a government in exile, which it would have been in 1988…

Contrary to two earlier indications, Abbas met the UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon just before delivering his speech, and handed over the official Palestinian application — which Abbas signed as President of the State of Palestine, and Chairman of the PLO.

A few hours later, the Washington Post’s UN correspondent Colum Lynch posted the official PLO letter, plus a transmittal letter by UNSG Ban, and a distribution note from the current President [Lebanon] of the UN Security Council for the month of September, here.

The full text of Abbas’s speech to the UNGA can be found here, or here.

Here are some excerpts:

“We aspire for and seek a greater and more effective role for the United Nations in working to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in our region that ensures the inalienable, legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people as defined by the resolutions of international legitimacy of the United Nations…

UPDATE: Though some were not happy, it is fair to say that even some of those Palestinians who have been most critical of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership were pleased. Palestinian activist Mazin Qumsiyeh [Popular Resistance, based in Bethlehem] wrote on his blog, here:

“Mahmoud Abbas gave a brilliant speech at the United Nations, getting rounds of applause from most of the representatives. I think it demonstrated clearly and unambiguously that the Palestinian leadership has been “unreasonably reasonable” and has instead seen the hopes of peace and of millions of Palestinians suffering for 63 years dashed on the rock of Israeli expansionist, colonial, and apartheid policies. He explained that Israel has been taking one unilateral action after another each resulting in more pain and suffering for our people. Going to the UN, he explained is putting things back where the problems started (he did not use the last two words but I do). He said a word that I think he should defend strongly that
no person or country with an iota of logic or conscience should reject the Palestinian state membership in the UN or its formation in the 22% of historic Palestine that is the West Bank and Gaza. I think he took a courageous step and gave a good performance”.

Israeli activist Uri Avnery [Gush Shalom, journalist and former Knesset member] issued a statement saying: ” ‘Mahmud Abbas has taken the excuses out of Netnayhau’s hands. The State of Palestine, under his leadership, is fully ready to make peace with the State of Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders, to resume negotiations if no settlement facts are created on the land subject to negotiations – but the Palestinians are not ready to continue to live under occupation … The State of Palestine will not arise tomorrow, and a long and hard road awaits all of us until this state becomes a reality and takes its rightful place as the Palestinians’ national state and Israel’s partner for peace. Still, today will be counted among the key historical dates in the history of our region. Netanyahu’s answering speech was nothing but a cheap compilation of propaganda, with rejection of the Palestinian offer and intransigent refusal to end the occupation packed in “security” rhetoric and clichés. The “Palestinian state” envisioned in Netahyhau’s speech would be “demilitarized” but have a heavy Israeli military presence in its territory. In practice, there is reason to doubt Netanyahu intends to let any kind of Palestinian state come into being or withdraw from any territory, and his speech in practice left nothing to negotiate about. By a blatant interference in American internal politics, Netanyahu has bent the US to his will. He forced the President of the United States to deliver at the UN a Zionist and cynical speech, contradicting and nullifying Obama’s own previous positions, and assured a US veto and outright opposition to Palestinian aspirations. But it was a pyrrhic victory for Netanyahu – he has been shown the entire world that the United States is not suitable to serve as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians … If and when negotiations resume between Israel and the Palestinians, it will be necessary to find a mediator or mediators more appropriate and fair – which confirms the Palestinians in their decision to move the focus of diplomatic activity from the White House to the UN Headquarters”.

The Israel Project called the speech hate-filled. Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman said it was provocation. And hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Palestinians felt that it was an accurate, concise, restrained description of their suffering.

The Abbas speech continued:

the Israeli government refuses to commit to terms of reference for the negotiations that are based on international law and United Nations resolutions, and…frantically continues to intensify building of settlements on the territory of the State of Palestine. Settlement activities embody the core of the policy of colonial military occupation of the land of the Palestinian people and all of the brutality of aggression and racial discrimination against our people that this policy entails. This policy, which constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law and United Nations resolutions, is the primary cause for the failure of the peace process, the collapse of dozens of opportunities, and the burial of the great hopes that arose from the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993 between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel to achieve a just peace that would begin a new era for our region.
…
The occupation is racing against time to redraw the borders on our land according to what it wants and to impose a fait accompli on the ground that changes the realities and that is undermining the realistic potential for the existence of the State of Palestine.
…
This policy will destroy the chances of achieving a two-State solution upon which there is an international consensus, and here I caution aloud: This settlement policy threatens to also undermine the structure of the Palestinian National Authority and even its existence.

In addition, we now face the imposition new conditions not previously raised, conditions that will transform the raging conflict in our inflamed region into a religious conflict and a threat to the future of a million and a half Christian and Muslim Palestinians, citizens of Israel, a matter which we reject and which is impossible for us to accept being dragged into.

All of these actions taken by Israel in our country are unilateral actions and are not based on any earlier agreements. Indeed, what we witness is a selective application of the agreements aimed at perpetuating the occupation. Israel reoccupied the cities of the West Bank by a unilateral action, and reestablished the civil and military occupation by a unilateral action, and it is the one that determines whether or not a Palestinian citizen has the right to reside in any part of the Palestinian Territory. And it is confiscating our land and our water and obstructing our movement as well as the movement of goods. And it is the one obstructing our whole destiny. All of this is unilateral.
…
In 1988, President Arafat again addressed the General Assembly, which convened in Geneva to hear him, where he submitted the Palestinian peace program adopted by the Palestine National Council at its session held that year in Algeria.

When we adopted this program, we were taking a painful and very difficult step for all of us, especially those, including myself, who were forced to leave their homes and their towns and villages, carrying only some of our belongings and our grief and our memories and the keys of our homes to the camps of exile and the Diaspora in the 1948 Al-Nakba, one of the worst operations of uprooting, destruction and removal of a vibrant and cohesive society that had been contributing in a pioneering and leading way in the cultural, educational and economic renaissance of the Arab Middle East.

Yet, because we believe in peace and because of our conviction in international legitimacy, and because we had the courage to make difficult decisions for our people, and in the absence of absolute justice, we decided to adopt the path of relative justice – justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people. Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine – on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967.
…
I confirm, on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, which will remain so until the end of the conflict in all its aspects and until the resolution of all final status issues, the following:

1. The goal of the Palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the land of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied in the June 1967 war, in conformity with the resolutions of international legitimacy and with the achievement of a just and agreed upon solution to the Palestine refugee issue in accordance with resolution 194, as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative which presented the consensus Arab vision to resolve the core the Arab-Israeli conflict and to achieve a just and comprehensive peace. To this we adhere and this is what we are working to achieve. Achieving this desired peace also requires the release of political prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons without delay.

2. The PLO and the Palestinian people adhere to the renouncement of violence and rejection and condemning of terrorism in all its forms, especially State terrorism, and adhere to all agreements signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel.

3. We adhere to the option of negotiating a lasting solution to the conflict in accordance with resolutions of international legitimacy. Here, I declare that the Palestine Liberation Organization is ready to return immediately to the negotiating table on the basis of the adopted terms of reference based on international legitimacy and a complete cessation of settlement activities.

4. Our people will continue their popular peaceful resistance to the Israeli occupation and its settlement and apartheid policies and its construction of the racist annexation Wall, and they receive support for their resistance, which is consistent with international humanitarian law and international conventions and has the support of peace activists from Israel and around the world, reflecting an impressive, inspiring and courageous example of the strength of this defenseless people, armed only with their dreams, courage, hope and slogans in the face of bullets, tanks, tear gas and bulldozers.

5. When we bring our plight and our case to this international podium, it is a confirmation of our reliance on the political and diplomatic option and is a confirmation that we do not undertake unilateral steps. Our efforts are not aimed at isolating Israel or de-legitimizing it; rather we want to gain legitimacy for the cause of the people of Palestine. We only aim to de-legitimize the settlement activities and the occupation and apartheid and the logic of ruthless force, and we believe that all the countries of the world stand with us in this regard.

I am here to say on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestine Liberation Organization: We extend our hands to the Israeli government and the Israeli people for peace-making. I say to them: Let us urgently build together a future for our children where they can enjoy freedom, security and prosperity. Let us build the bridges of dialogue instead of checkpoints and walls of separation, and build cooperative relations based on parity and equity between two neighboring States – Palestine and Israel – instead of policies of occupation, settlement, war and eliminating the other.
…
It is no longer possible to redress the issue of the blockage of the horizon of the peace talks with the same means and methods that have been repeatedly tried and proven unsuccessful over the past years. The crisis is far too deep to be neglected, and what is more dangerous are attempts to simply circumvent it or postpone its explosion.

It is neither possible, nor practical, nor acceptable to return to conducting business as usual, as if everything is fine. It is futile to go into negotiations without clear parameters and in the absence of credibility and a specific timetable. Negotiations will be meaningless as long as the occupation army on the ground continues to entrench its occupation, instead of rolling it back, and continues to change the demography of our country in order to create a new basis on which to alter the borders.
…
It is a moment of truth and my people are waiting to hear the answer of the world. Will it allow Israel to continue its occupation, the only occupation in the world? Will it allow Israel to remain a State above the law and accountability? Will it allow Israel to continue rejecting the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice and the positions of the overwhelming majority of countries in the world?
…
I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people in the homeland and in the the Diaspora, to say, after 63 years of suffering of the ongoing Nakba: Enough. It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence.

The time has come to end the suffering and the plight of millions of Palestine refugees in the homeland and the Diaspora, to end their displacement and to realize their rights, some of them forced to take refuge more than once in different places of the world.

At a time when the Arab peoples affirm their quest for democracy – the Arab Spring – the time is now for the Palestinian Spring, the time for independence.

The time has come for our men, women and children to live normal lives, for them to be able to sleep without waiting for the worst that the next day will bring; for mothers to be assured that their children will return home without fear of suffering killing, arrest or humiliation; for students to be able to go to their schools and universities without checkpoints obstructing them. The time has come for sick people to be able to reach hospitals normally, and for our farmers to be able to take care of their good land without fear of the occupation seizing the land and its water, which the wall prevents access to, or fear of the settlers, for whom settlements are being built on our land and who are uprooting and burning the olive trees that have existed for hundreds of years. The time has come for the thousands of prisoners to be released from the prisons to return to their families and their children to become a part of building their homeland, for the freedom of which they have sacrificed.

My people desire to exercise their right to enjoy a normal life like the rest of humanity. They believe what the great poet Mahmoud Darwish said: Standing here, staying here, permanent here, eternal here, and we have one goal, one, one: to be.

We profoundly appreciate and value the positions of all States that have supported our struggle and our rights and recognized the State of Palestine following the Declaration of Independence in 1988, as well as the countries that have recently recognized the State of Palestine and those that have upgraded the level of Palestine’s representation in their capitals. I also salute the Secretary-General, who said a few days ago that the Palestinian State should have been established years ago.

Be assured that this support for our people is more valuable to them than you can imagine, for it makes them feel that someone is listening to their narrative and that their tragedy and the horrors of Al-Nakba and the occupation, from which they have so suffered, are not being ignored. And, it reinforces their hope that stems from the belief that justice is possible in this in this world. The loss of hope is the most ferocious enemy of peace and despair is the strongest ally of extremism.

I say: The time has come for my courageous and proud people, after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering, to live like other peoples of the earth, free in a sovereign and independent homeland”…

Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu addressed the same UNGA session, within the hour. The full text of his speech can be found here.

Here are some excerpts from the Netanyahu speech:

“We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn’t calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger. Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) [sic - this should be EUBAM, the European Union Border Assistance Mission, which was not a peacekeeping mission, but a bunch of customs inspectors who were supposed to help train the Gaza border officials] in Gaza didn’t stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace. We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of — out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even — we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.

Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.

But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day — in one day.

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this, Israelis rightly ask: What’s to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank?
…
Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel’s critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it’s as if nothing happened — just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.

And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.

I want to put it for you in perspective, because you’re all in the city. That’s about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It’s the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don’t forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel’s neighbors.

So how do you — how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can’t defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that’s exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn’t require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.
…
All these potential cracks in Israel’s security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won’t be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.

The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first. (Applause.)

And there’s one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.
…
Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don’t you think it’s about time that Palestinians did the same?

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day — in fact, I think they made it right here in New York — they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free — Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That’s racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don’t want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up — we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for — was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the — I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

The settlements have to be — it’s an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

I think it’s time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state. (Applause.) President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they’re ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel’s security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.

I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That’s like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we’re called “Jews”? Because we come from Judea”…

As if they don’t know. Or — as if someone else should tell them.

Since their 1988 Declaration of Independence, the Palestinian National Council agreed to form their state with the borders of June 4, 1967 — the eve of the war which saw Israel conquer the West Bank and the Gaza Strip [and the Golan Heights].

In 2008, as the U.S.-brokered Annapolis direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinians faltered, then-Secretary of State Condoleezzaa Rice said that defining the borders between them would help define which Israeli Jewish settlements in the West Bank [if any] would be “legal”.

Obama’s words today at the UN go even further…

“One year ago, I stood at this podium and called for an independent Palestine. I believed then – and I believe now – that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that genuine peace can only be realized between Israelis and Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May. That basis is clear, and well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

Later, Obama met Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was very pleased with the Obama statement, and after that, at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, with a weary and disillusioned Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who had put his head on the desk in front of him during part of the Obama speech.

Abbas’ spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said later that both men had reiterated their positions.

Haaretz reported later that “U.S. President Barack Obama told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday that UN action would not achieve a Palestinian state and the United States would veto any Security Council move to recognize Palestinian statehood, the White House said. ‘We would have to oppose any action at the UN Security Council including, if necessary, vetoing’, Ben Rhodes, the White House national security council spokesman, told reporters after Obama met Abbas in New York. PLO diplomatic envoy to the U.S. Maen Rashid Erekat told Haaretz that the U.S. President ‘reiterated the commitment of the U.S. to the establishment of the Palestinian state, as part of the two-state solution, and stressed the position of the US that the UN is not the right venue to reach this goal.” This article is posted here.

There were demonstrations in the West Bank on Thursday denouncing the Obama speech, and a number of Palestinian writers found a ready acceptance in American publications for their English-language Op-Ed articles or blog submissions.

But, Mahmoud Abbas and his negotiating team did not escape criticism either, from other articles such as this one published on the Al-Jazeera English-language website, here.

The pressure on Mr. Abbas in New York has been immense, and he has reportedly felt both isolated, and abandoned.

There are rumors that he is preparing to resign when he returns to Ramallah — though from which of his three posts [Chairman of the PLO, President of the Palestinian Authority, leader of the Fatah movement] is not entirely clear.

An extraordinary article in the New York Times today’s paper [Thursday], reported from both a reception in New York and Jerusalem, says that “Shimon Peres, Israel’s president, met secretly with Mr. Abbas three times in recent months in efforts to … avoid a United Nations battle. Mr. Netanyahu ultimately pulled the plug on those talks, leaving Mr. Abbas a sense of having no alternatives. Mr. Peres said in an interview in Jerusalem that he tried to convince Mr. Abbas that United Nations membership would not help because what is needed is independence for the Palestinians and security for the Israelis, and the United Nations can deliver neither. ‘He told me, “I’m alone, betrayed by the United States, betrayed by Israel and by everyone else”, ‘Mr. Peres recalled from a recent conversation. Mr. Abbas echoed those sentiments on Tuesday night. Terje Roed-Larsen, a former United Nations envoy to the Mideast who now leads the International Peace Institute in New York, hugged him and asked for a meeting later in the evening. ‘Tonight our schedule is full with the Americans’, Mr. Abbas replied. ‘They want us to meet, but we don’t, really we don’t want’. Mr. Larsen asked why he was going then. ‘I don’t know why really’, Mr. Abbas said,’I am not happy with anybody, not with the Americans, nor the Arabs. I am fed up with all these people and I don’t know what to do when I return back’.” Abbas’ weary, unguarded, unwise words to Terje Roed-Larsen are published here.

Part of what makes this so interesting is that it is not clear how the NYTimes heard this conversation — was its UN correspondent Neil MacFarquhar standing right beside the two men [Terje Roed-Larsen, former UN Special Envoy, and former Foreign Minister of Norway when he hosted Palestinians and Israelis for talks that led to the Oslo Accords]? Or, did Mr. Roed-Larsen pass this conversation on to the NYTimes?

It is also interesting to recall that Roed-Larsen himself was, in July 2004, once called persona non grata by Palestinian presidential spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudeineh — then working with Yasser Arafat — after Roed-Larsen told the UN Security Council that “The Palestinian leader is under house arrest but this isn’t an excuse for passivity + inaction”.

Another NYTimes article published today, reported from the corridors of the United Nations, says that in his address to the UN General Assembly, “President Obama tried to qualify his own call, just a year ago, for a Palestinian state. And President Nicolas Sarkozy of France stepped forcefully into the void, with a proposal that pointedly repudiated Mr. Obama’s approach. The extraordinary tableau Wednesday at the United Nations underscored a stark new reality: the United States is facing the prospect of having to share, or even cede, its decades-long role as the architect of Middle East peacemaking. American officials acknowledged that their various last-minute attempts to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with help from European allies and Russia had collapsed. ‘The U.S. cannot lead on an issue that it is so boxed in on by its domestic politics’, said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator in the government of Ehud Barak. ‘And therefore, with the region in such rapid upheaval and the two-state solution dying, as long as the U.S. is paralyzed, others are going to have to step up’.” This article is posted here.

A third article in the NYTimes, also from the UN, reported that “President Nicolas Sarkozy of France broke sharply on Wednesday with the effort by the Obama administration and some Europeans to quash the effort by the Palestinians for recognition here, instead calling for enhancing their status in the General Assembly to that of an observer state. ‘Let us cease our endless debates on the parameters’, Mr. Sarkozy said. ‘Let us begin negotiations and adopt a precise timetable’.
The timetable he suggested is resuming the negotiations in one month, agreeing on borders and security within six months and finishing a definitive agreement within one year. The Palestinians have sought a specific timeline, suggesting that endless stalling was slowly erasing the chances for a two-state solution. In the meantime, if the Palestinian effort at membership faces a Security Council veto, the deadly reverberations will be felt across the Arab world, Mr. Sarkozy warned. ‘Each of us knows that Palestine cannot immediately obtain full and complete recognition of the status of United Nations member state … But who could doubt that a veto at the Security Council risks engendering a cycle of violence in the Middle East? … ‘Why not envisage offering Palestine the status of United Nations observer state?’ said the French leader. ‘This would be an important step forward. Most important, it would mean emerging from a state of immobility that favors only the extremists’.” This can be read in full here.

Here, for the record, are the rest of Obama’s words to the UNGA yesterday on the Israeli-Palestinian situation:

“I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. So am I. But the question isn’t the goal we seek – the question is how to reach it. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN – if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem.

Peace depends upon compromise among peoples who must live together long after our speeches are over, and our votes have been counted. That is the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That is the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is the path to a Palestinian state.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There is no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. And it is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can achieve one.

America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day. Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.

These facts cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That truth – that each side has legitimate aspirations – is what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes. That’s what we should be encouraging. This body – founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide; dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every person – must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live in peace and security, with dignity and opportunity. We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come”.

“Membership in UN is something that is up to the member states of the UN … It does not fall within my mandate according to the Charter of the United Nations”

UNSG BAN also says:

“My only wish and hope is that we will not see any confrontational atmosphere in the UNGA over this issue.

“As a committed proponent of the two-state solution … the realization of that vision has been long overdue … Within that context I have been a strong proponent. I’m not in a position to prejudge any outcome which course of action the Palestinian president will take because I have not received any letter of application whatever … I’m going to have a bilateral meeting with the Palestinian leader in NY [the appointment has not been fixed yet]

“I have always been supporting the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations to have an independent state

“It is only natural that after such a loooooong time that the Palestinian people have been frustrated and trying to reach some of their goals. Whatever road they may choose is up to them … Now we are talking about recognition of a state within the UN or the admission of a state as a full member of the United Nations … but as far as their legit concerns and their aspirations or their enduring their sufferings, I fully sympathize…”

This video is posted both on Youtube here. and on the Al-Jazeera English-language website, here.

The UN Report states that all nine appeared to have been unarmed.

The UN report, which the NYTimes posted on its website today here, says that “The events of 31 May 2010 should never have taken place as they did”.

It also says that “The incident and its outcomes were not intended by either Turkey or Israel … But more could have been done to warn the flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from their actions”.

Gaza was allocated a maritime space for fishing and economic activities by agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], and a map defining this space as extending 20 nautical miles straight out into the Mediterranean is attached to 1994 and 1995 agreements signed under the Oslo process. The map is signed by Israel’s late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and by the PLO’s late leader Yasser Arafat — and it is also signed by the U.S. Secretary of State and by the Russian Foreign Minister, as well as a high-ranking member of the Egyptian military. And, plans for the construction of a deep sea port in Gaza were pointedly endorsed in a November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access brokered by U.S. then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

But, despite the Israeli “disengagement” of its settlers and the military forces protecting them in September 2005, Israel has not loosened its military control over Gaza’s external boundaries, particularly Gazan air and sea space.

Israel tightened its imposition of sanctions after the surprise Hamas victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006, and the capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit from Kerem Shalom in late June 2006. then the Hamas rout of Fatah-led Palestinian Preventive Security Forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007. In September 2007, the Israeli Government declared Gaza an enemy entity, or hostile territory, and the Israeli military was given the task of devising a regime that would allow into Gaza only the bare minimum of humanitarian necessities –and it went into effect in late October 2007.

Throughout, there has been sporadic but indiscriminate firing by various militant groups from Gaza of mortars, rockets, and other projectiles onto surrounding Israeli territory. Over the years, there have been thousands of these projectile attacks on Israel, which Palestinians have explained as natural responses to Israeli strikes on Gaza, but which the UN as well as human rights bodies have denounced as war crimes. Though Hamas has not claimed responsibility for several years, and has many times acted to try to control these attacks, Israel maintains that Hamas is now running Gaza, and is the ultimate “address”.

The Free Gaza movement launched its first expedition by sea to Gaza in August 2008, with the aim of “breaking the siege”.

Israel explained that it decided to allow the ship to pass, in order to deny the activists on board a “propaganda victory”. But, several expeditions later, by December 2008, Israel threatened and indeed did use force, once badly damaging a vessel by ramming, in order to block passage.

Then, on the night of 3-4 January 2009, halfway through the Israeli military’s Operation Cast Lead — a massive three-week assault of overwhelming force on targets said to be related to Hamas — Israel declared its formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The UN report states that “The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability…In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States”.

Specifically, the UN panel said it reviewed “statements from 93 individuals that were appended to the Turkish report, and excerpts of statements by IDF personnel engaged in the incident that were included in the Israeli report. In this regard, we stress again that the Panel is not a court. We have not personally heard the witnesses whose statements we have read. Nor are we able to make definite findings on each statement’s reliability and credibility. They are more plausible on some aspects than others. But in certain areas, when viewed as a whole, we regard them as useful material for the purposes of the Inquiry”.

The Panel said that it could not “make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view”.

On Israel’s formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, where 1.5 million people are virtually sealed inside a small strip of land from which Israel unilaterally “disengaged” in September 2005, and on which Israel maintains a tight military control, the UN report says:

“The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law…[However]…Bearing in mind its consequences and the fundamental importance of the freedom of navigation on the high seas, Israel should keep the naval blockade under regular review, in order to assess whether it continues to be necessary…”
“All States should act with prudence and caution in relation to the imposition and enforcement of a naval blockade. The established norms of customary international law must be respected and complied with by all relevant parties…”
“The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter…”
“States maintaining a naval blockade must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance…”
“States enforcing a naval blockade against non-military vessels, especially where large numbers of civilian passengers are involved, should be cautious in the use of force. Efforts should first be made to stop the vessels by non-violent means. In particular, they should not use force except when absolutely necessary and then should only use the minimum level of force necessary to achieve the lawful objective of maintaining the blockade. They must provide clear and express warnings so that the vessels are aware if force is to be used against them…”

But, Sari Bashi, the Director of the Israeli human rights organization GISHA, which led a group of ten Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations in an unsuccessful effort to get Israel’s Supreme Court to stop the collective punishment involved in the Israeli military-imposed sanctions against the Gaza Strip, issued a statement this evening saying: “In a failed attempt to achieve political compromise, the Palmer Report squandered an opportunity to evaluate the overall Gaza closure policy, still in place today. Stopping ships to Gaza for reasons of security is legal – the civilian closure of Gaza is not”.

Bashi said that “Gisha shares the position of the Palmer Commission that international law allows Israel to stop ships on their way to Gaza for the purposes of security. Nonetheless, Gisha recalls that, in parallel, the law requires Israel to allow freedom of movement for people and civilian goods to and from the Strip, subject only to individual security inspections. The Palmer Commission did not review Israel’s overall closure of the Gaza Strip, still in place today. For it to conform to the principles of international law, Israel must remove the sweeping restrictions on export of goods, movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank and entrance of construction materials”.

In a separate fact sheet on the UN Report, posted here, GISHA argues that in its view the formal Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is not lawful: “In our opinion, the legality of the maritime closure must be considered in the context of the overall closure of the Gaza Strip, which is also enforced by air and land. In this context, Israel has failed to meet its legal obligations. It is a fundamental principle of international law that with control comes responsibility; this in order to avoid a situation where no side takes responsibility for the protection of civilians during wartime or in situations of occupation. Accordingly, the substantial control Israel exercises over the crossings into the Gaza Strip imposes an equally substantial responsibility to permit the movement of people and goods at the level required in order to maintain the proper functioning of the economy, the health and education systems, and other aspects of civilian life. Israel is permitted to prevent the passage of merchandise or people only if there is a concrete security reason for doing so, and even then it must strike a balance between its security needs and its obligation to maintain normal life in the occupied territory. By preventing the passage of civilians and goods of a civilian nature to and from the Gaza Strip, Israel has paralyzed the economy of the area and caused substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, it has violated its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful”.

The UN report makes several points of specific and pointed criticism about the use of force, and resistance, during the Israeli naval interception — which, the report notes, took place 72 nautical miles off the coast, well outside of Israeli territorial waters [or Gaza's maritime space]:

“Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable … Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance…[and]…The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent…”
“Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded…”
“The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel…”
“There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance…”

Paul Woodward wrote, on his War in Context blog, a post entitled “How Israel got away with Murder on the Mavi Marmara”, in which he noted: “But just a minute. The panel — even if it’s conclusion amounted to saying, can’t you all just learn to get along — did actually note that Israel provided no information whatsoever on the circumstances in which nine men were killed. And had those deaths not occurred, there would have been no inquiry. Let’s repeat that … Israel provided no information whatsoever on the circumstances in which each of these deaths occurred”.

Woodward cites the UN report itself which says that “No evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons. Video footage shows one passenger holding only an open fire hose being killed by a single shot to the head or throat fired from a speedboat”.  This is posted here.

Back to the UN report — on the Freedom Flotilla, which was organized by a loose alliance of European and American advocates of Palestinian rights joined, for the first time by the Turkish humanitarian relief organization IHH [which Israelis have called "terrorist"] and a Malaysian NGO/charity, the report states:

“Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation”.
“All humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority…”
“Humanitarian missions must act in accordance with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity and respect any security measures in place. Humanitarian vessels should allow inspection and stop or change course when requested…”

Then, the UN report says that “An appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of the incident in light of its consequences” and “Israel should offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families, to be administered by the two governments through a joint trust fund of a sufficient amount to be decided by them”.

According to an article published in the New York times this afternoon, here, “The Foreign Ministries in Turkey and Israel declined to comment publicly on the report, saying they preferred to wait for its official release. No one was available to comment in the office of the United Nations spokesman”.

But, at a briefing for journalists today at the Mishkenot Shaananim center in Jerusalem, organized at rather short notice. former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Haloutz said: “Yes, we are sorry people were killed during the operation, very sorry”. Haloutz added: “I believe there were some innocent ones among those nine, but…that mission was not so innocent”.

Is that an official apology?

Haloutz was IDF Chief of Staff from 2005-2007, and was previously commander of the Israeli Air Force, and he said today that he made many trips to Turkey in his professional capacity. But, Haloutz is now retired from active military service, having been severely criticized for Israel’s military performance during the Second Lebanon War — and dabbled in business before joining, just eight months ago, the opposition Kadima party led by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni [who ran a hard-fought campaign against the current Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu in the last Israeli general elections in February 2009, and she continues to be very critical of Netanyahu's conduct of office].

Haloutz’s profile is perfect for making an unofficial [yet somehow official] apology.

The timing and purpose of the press briefing would otherwise seem…vague. And, he appeared at the press briefing in the company of a professional Public Relations man.

Haloutz told the journalists at the press briefing that the “The word apology is too strong…because Israel was doing a legal action to prevent [a violation] of the siege we imposed”.  And,  Haloutz added: “Our soldiers were under a live threat”.

Yes, it looks like Haloutz had already been briefed about what was in the UN report, and yes, it sure looks like a finessed Israeli apology.

After his meeting with journalists, Haloutz smoked a quick cigarette in the sunshine outside, then turned and quickly bounded up three flights of stone stairs, taking the whole rise two steps at a time. The PR man, also in as good [military-grade] shape, followed one step behind.

An AFP story that appeared in the first week of July said that the UN report considered these deaths “unacceptable”.

And, Sanberk said today: “obviously we cannot be expected to accept nine deaths”.

The Turkish passenger ship, chartered by the Turkish humanitarian aid organization IHH, was carrying about 600 passengers and crew, and was sailing towards Gaza as part of a “Freedom Flotilla” with a number of other boats carrying international activists and cargoes of humanitarian aid.

The stated aim of the Freedom Flotilla was to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza’s maritime space on 3-4 January 2009, as the IDF began the ground phase in its Operation Cast Lead against Hamas.

Sanberk is Turkey’s representative to the panel, which was assembled by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and headed by fFormer New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer. He spoke to the English-language Turkish newspaper, Today’s Zaman, in Istanbul, the paper said, after a week of closed-door negotiations in New York that started at the beginning of July. The paper added that “The report’s publication has been further delayed until the end of July in a [further] attempt to give Turkey and Israel a chance to resolve their differences”.

Sanberk noted that “it is probably the first time in Israel’s history that it is voluntarily taking part in a UN investigation”, and said that Israel seems to have “an attitude of making a diplomatic gesture by accepting the UN investigation. They have repeatedly expressed their demand for understanding in the face of their serious security problems, and expect the same understanding from Turkey, which they see as a friend”.

In the interview, Sanberk said that “The report clearly indicates the responsibility of the Israeli soldiers, while also acknowledging that Israel has security concerns and the Gaza blockade is legal. However, we know that the Israeli blockade of Gaza amounts to collective punishment as it includes civilians, women and children who bear no responsibility for the perceived threat to Israel”.

According to Today’s Zaman, Sanberk “also said that even though these details are not clearly stated in the [UN] panel’s report, another UN body, the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission in Geneva, had said last October that Israel’s military violated international law during the raid”.

“It is interesting to note that two bodies, both under the UN, have conflicting results in their reports”, Sanberk said.

He then added: “I should stress that the [UN's] report’s reference to the legality of the Gaza blockade is unacceptable to us … as other UN bodies challenge this view. As a maritime power with the longest coast in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is obviously unacceptable to us that a country be allowed to intercept ships according to its own interpretation of the law. The overarching rule of international law is freedom of navigation on the high seas. It’s [a] pillar of international law.”.

Sanberk explained that “the Israeli side has told the world that the act of the Israeli marines was a legitimate act of self defense, but the world has not taken this rationale seriously as the attack occurred in open seas, 72 miles from Israel, and 64 miles from the so-called blockaded area. The attack, which included frigates, submarines, planes, helicopters, speed boats and heavy weapons, was promulgated against a vessel carrying humanitarian aid and unarmed activists who had to protect their lives with no firearms. It resulted in nine deaths and several injuries. The notion of self defense comes with restrictions established by international law, similar to those in criminal law, stemming from the idea of a sense of proportionate response. The military attack on the humanitarian convoy inflicted disproportionate casualties upon the civilians. Besides, it is prohibited to attack vessels carrying humanitarian cargo under any circumstances. Israel is trying to mitigate its responsibility. It is trying to say that it had no intention to kill people and that operational mistakes occurred. But even if I spill some coffee on you, I would apologize and offer to pay the cost of your dry cleaning; this is expected. Israel fears that the marines and their commanders would be exposed to prosecution abroad because an apology would be seen as an admission of culpability”.

But, he noted, “the report also highlights the responsibility of the Israeli soldiers for the deaths and injuries. Therefore, if Israel is ready for an apology and compensation, we are ready to leave the unfortunate event behind”.

Sanberk, who currently heads the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/ USAK), also said in the interview that “We would like Israel to demonstrate its capacity to act in a rational way. Israel expects an understanding that it has a security problem, but the Palestinians also have a security problem and they are entitled to enjoy the blessings of peace and prosperity just as Israelis are. Yes, we respect our heritage with the Israelis. We have a unique relationship with Israel, but we stand in solidarity with the Palestinians, too”.

This interview can be read in full here.

The UN said it still did not know the exact casualty toll. The report said that the two demonstrations “resulted in an unconfirmed number of civilian casualties and put the long-held ceasefire in jeopardy”.

The statement about the Israeli-Syrian ceasefire being in jeopardy is a surprise: there are no reports of any Syrian responses to the Israeli firing on the demonstrators.

The report was prepared, as it usually is, by the UNSG in connection with the imminent renewal of the mandate of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights later this month.   The UN has decided to ask for a regular six-month renewal, as has happened since 1974, and a threat to the cease-fire would be a good justification for renewal.

The report does not say that Syrian forces were in any way responsible for the organizing the protests, though it does note several times that the Syrian forces were present.

On May 15, it said, “A total of 44 civilian casualties, including four fatalities from IDF fire, were reported, but UNDOF has not been able to confirm these numbers”. In the second demonstration, it said, “Although UNDOF could not confirm the number of casualties during the 5 June events, up to 23 persons have been reported killed and many more wounded”.

The report said that it was still investigating an “incident” in which two civilians “entered Majdal Chams and demonstrated in the town centre” during the May 15 protest — and were detained by the IDF. They were returned two days later, on 17 May, “by the IDF through UNDOF and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to the Syrian authorities”. According to the UN report, “UNDOF is investigating the incident and both parties have agreed in principle to cooperate with UNDOF’s investigation”.

It also said it was still investigating an apparent attack by protestors, during the June 5 protest, on an UNDOF position. Stones were thrown at a UNDOF commander trying to calm the situation, several protesters climbed the walls and entered the UNDOF facility and some UNDOF military police were evacuated for their own protection.

UNSG BAN said in the report that “the serious events that occurred in UNDOF’s area of operations on 15 May and 5 June are of grave concern … I call on both parties to show restraint and refrain from provocations so as to prevent escalation of tensions along the ceasefire line”.

UNDOF has been present in the Golan since May 1974, and has a troop strength of just over 1,000 UN Peacekeepers from several countries. At the moment, some 79 military observers from the Jerusalem-based UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) working with UNDOF.

The first demonstration, on May 15, was called to commemorate the dispossession of some 750,000 Palestinians in the fighting that surrounded the creation of the State of Israel. It was the first time that the Israeli lines were breached by protesters, and the Israeli military admitted it had been surprised. The IDF then made major preparations to prevent what it called “infiltration”, and to “defend its border and protect its communities” in the three-week interval prior to the June 5 demonstration, which marked the anniversary of the June 1967 war in which Israel conquered the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights which it still occupies (as well as the Egyptian Sinai which Israel returned to Egypt with the conclusion of a peace treaty).

The report said that UNDOF had no prior notice of the May 15 demonstration, but that it had planned and made preparations with the Syrian and Israeli military in advance of the June 5 event.

Ahead of the June 5 protest, according to the report, “Syrian authorities provided assurance of their cooperation with and support for UNDOF. The IDF said that it would follow its rules of engagement allowing for escalating measures of deterrence, culminating with live direct fire, and that it would implement harsh measures against anyone crossing the ceasefire line and technical fence. UNDOF’s Force Commander emphasized the need to practice maximum restraint”.

The ICRC was also supposed to be in the Golan on June 5, according to the UN report.

Here is how the report described the two demonstrations:
(1) “On 15 May, a group of approximately 4,000 civilians, the vast majority Palestinian, gathered over the course of several hours at a location known as ‘the Family Shouting Place’ in the area of separation on the Bravo [Syrian] side of UNDOF’s area of operation, opposite the village of Majdal Chams in the area of limitation on the Israeli-occupied Golan (Alpha side). UNDOF had no prior notification of the demonstration. The gathering was supervised by Syrian security forces and the Syrian authorities. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) observed the demonstration from behind the IDF technical fence, which is beyond the ceasefire line on the Alpha side. At a point in the early afternoon on that same day, approximately 300 of the demonstrators suddenly moved toward the Alpha side and, despite the presence of the Syrian Police, crossed the ceasefire line, through an unmarked mine field, and broke through the IDF technical fence. The IDF, which had reinforced its presence in the area, used tear gas and fired warning shots followed by direct fire to disperse crowds at the fence. Approximately 100 of the protestors entered Majdal Chams and demonstrated in the town centre”.

(2) “On 5 June, demonstrators, mostly young unarmed Palestinians, again amassed in the vicinity of the Family Shouting Place/Majdal Chams (near UNDOF Position 16), and in the town of Quneitra (UNDOF positions 22 and 27), including at the nearby ‘Charlie Gate’, the designated official crossing point for UNDOF between the Alpha and Bravo sides. Despite the presence of Syrian security forces, protestors attempted to breach the ceasefire line in both locations. The IDF used tear gas and smoke grenades to deter the protesters, and live fire to prevent them crossing the ceasefire line. In the course of these events, several anti-tank mines exploded due to a brush fire apparently started by tear gas or smoke grenade canisters near UNDOF facilities at Charlie Gate, resulting in casualties among protesters. Syrian and Israeli fire squads and UNDOF extinguished the fire. Although UNDOF could not confirm the number of casualties during the 5 June events, up to 23 persons have been reported killed and many more wounded. UNDOF kept a distance from the confrontations but monitored the events from its positions and with armoured patrols. UNDOF’s Force Commander was engaged with IDF and Syrian authorities on the ground, both in Quneitra and the Family Shouting Place/Majdal Chams in an effort to de-escalate tensions. During the
events, three protesters scaled the walls of UNDOF Position 16 and briefly entered the facility, while other protesters threw rocks at the position. Rocks also were thrown at the Force Commander while he was trying to calm the situation.  UNDOF Position 22D (an outpost of Position 22) and a nearby detachment of UNDOF Military Police were evacuated to Camp Ziouani for safety reasons. At the time of writing, UNDOF was seeking to confirm the facts and help calm a continuing volatile situation in the area”.

The report did try to answer some of the questions about what role the UN peacekeepers had played during the two demonstrations. After the demonstrators moved across the Golan on May 15, it said, “The UNDOF Force Commander was in direct contact with Syrian authorities on the spot on the Bravo side, attempting to persuade the crowd to pull back.  He also crossed to the Alpha side to liaise with the IDF commander on the ground to bring about an end to the confrontation. Subsequently, the majority of the civilians that had crossed the ceasefire line returned to the Syrian side, after which they voluntarily began to leave the area”.

At one place, the report said both Israel and Syria had, as in the past, “denied [UNDOF] inspection teams access to some of their positions and imposed restrictions on the Force’s freedom of movement”.

But at two points in the report, there was specific criticism of Syria for restricting the UN peacekeepers’ movements — and linked this implicitly to the anti-government Syrian protests. It said, first, that: “Beyond such routine and temporary restrictions, beginning in late April and continuing through the time of drafting this report, Observer Group Golan (OGG) teams encountered restrictions of movement in the southern part of the area of limitation on the Bravo side, where Syrian authorities denied access, including in the vicinities of Al Asbah, Al Harrah, Nawa, Qasim, Tafas and Tasil, ostensibly for reasons of safety and security of the military observers”.

The UNSG added: “I am concerned by the increasing restrictions of movement on Observer Group Golan teams in the area of limitation on the Bravo [Syrian] side”.

But, on the very important question of minefields, the report was evasive. It made no mention of any “newly-laid” IDF minefields, despite Israeli media reports.

It did mention minefields — but did not say where they were, whose they were, or when they had been planted. Nor did it say how many of the minefields were marked (or not). It spoke only of anti-tank mines, and not of anti-personnel landmines.

The report also said: “In the area of operation, especially in the vicinity of the ceasefire line in the area of separation, mines continued to pose a threat to UNDOF personnel and local inhabitants. Owing to the long-term presence of the mines and the deterioration of their detonation systems, the threat has increased. UNDOF continued to carry out operational mine clearance and also supported two civil mine clearing projects. Coordination with other agencies is continuing in an effort to assist in increasing the level of mine awareness among the civilian population, in particular children, as well as exploring ways to assist those who have been injured by mine accidents. UNDOF is preparing to continue, along the Bravo line, the project to accurately and clearly mark portions of the lines delineating the area of separation”.

It began by calling for an immediate cease-fire.

The text explicitly mentions Benghazi, which is was under imminent threat (until the Libyan Foreign Minister retracted the threat after accepting the resolution’s call for a cease-fire; earlier, members of the Qaddhafi family said troops loyal to them would be in Benghazi by nightfall

France has reportedly said that military action  under this new UNSC resolution would begin within hours — see the report in The Guardian newspaper, here.

France seems to have taken the lead internationally.  It was also France which put its foot down in UN Security Council deliberations on 26 February, insisting that a provision must be included in UNSC Resolution 1970, adopted unanimously that day, to refer violence against protesters to the International Criminal Court, or ICC.

Since then, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has reportedly opened an investigation into events in Libya.

After the new resolution adopted last night, there were indications that NATO will reopen debate on its role in moves to protect civilian life and areas in Libya…

Within hours, Libyan authorities closed the country’s airspace, as Sky News reported here.

A short while later, the Libyan Foreign Minister announced a cease-fire and an end to military operations, saying that the country must obey the UNSC resolutions. He did express concern, however, that the new UNSC resolution envisaged military action against Libya. And he said that the no-fly provisions in the new UNSC resolution should not have included Libyan civilian flights.

The new resolution, in its fourth operative paragraph, ” Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”…

“All necessary measures” has typically had a range of meanings when countries actually come to interpret the diplomatic language of UNSC resolutions. It means whatever the most powerful member states want it to mean. In Bosnia, and in its beseiged “safe haven” of Srebrenica, it meant very little, in fact virtually nothing, in 1993, when thousands of Muslim men and boys were massacred despite the presence of a Dutch battalion of UN Peacekeepers…)

Five countries abstained — including two of the UNSC’s five permanent members, Russia + China. Germany, India and Brazil abstained. No countries voted against the draft text, which passed with ten votes, one more than the absolute minimum needed for adoption.

The new resolution was adopted under what are often called (though see paras above) the “binding” and “obligatory” or even “mandatory” provisions of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter.

Indeed, the Arab League last week called on the UNSC to adopt a “no-fly zone” over Libya to save civilian lives.

The Qaddhafi family argues that it has made no air attacks on civilians or civilian areas in Libya. Tanks have indisputably been used against protesters.

The new resolution also “Decides to establish a ban on all flights [though not (a) flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian; or (b) flights evacuating foreign nationals; or (c) flights being undertaken by UN member states to implement paragraph four] in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians”.

The new resolution also strengthens and gives specific ways to implement the previous UNSC decision (resolution 1970, adopted unanimously on 26 February) which authorizes an arms embargo against Libya, and imposed a freeze of assets of members of the family of Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddhafi, and a travel ban on a total of some 22 Libyans.

The new UNSC Resolution 1973, adopted overnight, establishes a sanctions committee, and also calls for the naming of an 8-member Panel of Experts to follow up the implementation of this resolution.