Reports indicated, Saturday evening, that the ship had just sailed.

The voyage for this ship from Greece to Gaza is estimated to take about 80 hours.

However, Israel’s YNet website has reported that “the Greek government said it had reached an agreement with the crew according to which the ship would not try to reach the Hamas-ruled territory”. The YNet story added that the Israeli Navy will track the vessel throughout its voyage, and that an IDF officer said Saturday night: “Any deviation from the original course, which will lead the ship to Gaza, will be blocked by the Navy … In case those on board fail to follow our instructions to stop and allow the Navy vessels to escort them, we will not hesitate to employ other methods to stop them.” This is reported here.

The ship was chartered to deliver some 2000 tons of food and medical aid on behalf of the Gadhafi International Charity and Development Association, headed by Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi’s son, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi.

Food and medicine are items which should not, at least theoretically, be on the Israeli lists of what it bans from entering Gaza. But there is a problem with some “dual-use” items which could, theoretically at least, also be used in making weapons.

Israel has just published a list based, it said, on a list agreed by some 40 nations, supplemented with extra items prohibited in specific Israeli “internal legislation” — including an unspecified number of military orders drawn up by the Israeli military’s Central Command.

According to the report in Haaretz, written by Barak Ravid, Israeli Foreign Ministry officials said the ship “would dock at Egyptian port el-Arish rather than the Gaza strip”. This is published here.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak “met Saturday with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman and discussed the Libyan flotilla that was set to arrive in the Gaza Strip. The two discussed the possibilities of the aid ship being accepted at the Egyptian port of El Arish”. This is posted here.

These are strong and concerted steps by two men who were at each other’s throats a week ago over fallout from the fiasco of the Israeli naval assault on the Freedom Flotilla at sea on 31 May which left nine men dead on board a large Turkish-chartered passenger ship, the Mavi Marmara. [Lieberman accused Barak of leaking news of a meeting that Lieberman had not been informed about between the Turkish Foreign Minister and Israeli Minister Benyamin [Fouad] Ben Eliezar].

Alternatively, an Associated Press report on Israel’s YNet website indicates, somewhat surprisingly, that according to the Libyan charity’s “head volunteer”, Adburaufel Jaziri, the group is prepared to let Israel check the cargo: “Israel ‘can check our cargo and certificates, of course they are free to do this’,” Jaziri said. ‘If we cannot deliver the aid, we will let (Israel) deliver it … Our job is to help anyone who needs it. We don’t care if they are Catholics or Muslims or whatever. Now we are helping the people of Gaza who are suffering”.

YNet added that “The Israeli military would not comment on the Libyan ship. Israel’s policy has been to offer ships of this type the option of docking at an Israeli port, after which Israel will screen the goods aboard and transfer them into Gaza by land”. [According to this AP report, there will only be 27 people on board [15 volunteers, almost all Libyan, and a 12-member crew from several countries] not hundreds, or thousands…] This YNet report is published here.

This was something that neither the Free Gaza movement, nor the coalition of groups on board the Freedom Flotilla, were prepared to allow.

These reported remarks from the Libyan charity “head volunteer” are yet another indication that Israel’s Naval blockade of Gaza is quietly gaining international agreement.

There was no public challenge to Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip when it was first announced during the Gaza war.

Now, to cover all its bases, Israel has written letter to the highest UN official and its two most significant bodies in which it discusses, perhaps for the first time [I stand to be corrected, if wrong -- but I don't think I am], Israel’s formal declared naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Haaretz reported today that the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, wrote a letter on Friday to UN Secretary General BAN KI-Moon, which she also copied to the current President of the UN Security Council [Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, during the month of July] and to the President of the current [64th] UN General Assembly [who just happens to be Libya's former Foreign Minister, Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki] saying that “Israel calls upon the international community to exert its influence on the government of Libya to demonstrate responsibility and prevent the ship from departing to the Gaza Strip … Israel reserves the right under international law to prevent this ship from violating the existing naval blockade on the Gaza Strip”. In the letter, Shalev further urged the international community “to discourage their nationals from taking part in such action,” adding that Israel “expects the international community to ensure that this ship does not sail.” This report is published here.

However, Haaretz, which should know better, wrote — incorrectly — that “Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza in 2007 following a bloody Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. Israel recently eased the terms of the land blockade on the territory, following a deadly raid of a Turkish aid ship, but the naval blockade has so far remained in place”. [This was published here].

This shows how the imprecise use of the term “blockade” has confused the situation.

Many have used the word to mean all of what was happening in Gaza, following an Israeli government decision in September 2007 [less than 3 months after the Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security Services in Gaza] to declare Gaza an “enemy entity” or “hostile territory”. The Israeli Ministry of Defense was charged with implementing this government decision, and decided to impose progressively-tightened sanctions at Israel’s land crossings into Gaza.

The Free Gaza movement began in August 2008 to sail ships to “break the siege” on Gaza.

The Israeli government response was divided and chaotic. To deter the Free Gaza expeditions, the Israeli Navy announced, in a Notice to Mariners in mid-2008, that it would stop and search any ships entering Gaza’s maritime space. But, the top “political echelon” in Israel [which includes the Defense Minister] decided to ignore the first couple of Free Gaza expeditions, so as not to give them any “propaganda victory”. The not-quite-identical “political echelon” that is in place now in Israel said, before the Freedom Flotilla set sail for Gaza at the end of May, again said that this expedition was a mere propaganda ploy — but they also made it clear in advance that they were planning to stop the Freedom Flotilla from sailing to Gaza by all available means, including military force.

Even after the start of the IDF’s unprecedented Operation Cast Lead [27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009], the Free Gaza movement launched a sea expedition from Cyprus to Gaza that was rammed at sea on 30 December by Israeli naval vessels, and had to limp into a Lebanese port for repairs.

On 3 January 2009, as the Israeli Army began its feared ground offensive into the Gaza Strip [with its 1.5 million souls, it is one of the most-densely populated parts of the planet], the Israeli government announced a formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, essentially covering Gaza’s maritime space as defined in a map, which we have published several times on this blog here, and which is attached to the Oslo Accords.

As if nothing had changed — perhaps because they saw no Israeli effort to publicize or explain its naval blockade — the Free Gaza movement launched a second expedition by sea, well into the course of Operation Cast Lead. Confronted by the Israeli Navy, this ship gave up and returned to Cyprus without damage, in order to “save lives”. A Free Gaza spokesperson told me at the time: “We had no choice”.

Four months or so later, in June 2009, the last Free Gaza expedition left Cyprus and sailed for Gaza. They were intercepted, boarded, and forced to Ashdod Port, where those aboard were detained for over a week before being deported from Israel.

A formal naval blockade is quite different than what was happening at Israel’s land crossings into the Gaza Strip. A naval blockade has a specific status in international law.

For decades, however, there has been a diversity of attitudes in Israeli political echelons towards international law — and many of those attitudes were simply dismissive.

This is perhaps one of the explanations for Israel’s failure — until the Freedom Flotilla appeared on the horizon — to publicize or explain its formal naval blockade.

Questions I sent to the IDF spokespersons’ “new media” department a week ago are also still unanswered…

It interesting to see that the Israeli Ambassador’s letter to the UN officials and bodies states, according to Haaretz, that because “Israel has taken upon itself the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of humanitarian aid into the Palestinian territory”, then “The declared intentions of this [Libyan] mission are even more questionable and provocative given the recent measures taken by Israel to ensure the increase of humanitarian aid flowing into the Gaza Strip”.

In a similar vein, YNet reported that Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Andy David said that “Humanitarian aid is allowed into Gaza through land crossings and the Israeli government had increased the flow of goods into the Palestinian territory last week … ‘All humanitarian aid goes in freely, therefore the Libyan intention is nothing more than a cheap provocation’, he said”.

Showing how on-message the Israeli government appears to be, YNet reported on Saturday night that “Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the Libyan aid vessel’s journey an ‘unnecessary provocation’, and suggested that the ship allow Navy vessels to escort it to Ashdod Port ‘or sail directly to El-Arish Port’.” This YNet story can be read in full here.

Egypt, with significant American material and technical assistance, has been building a steel wall that extends many meters underground, to prevent smuggling from the non-stop tunnels that extend the length of the Egyptian-Gazan border.

The Rafah crossing actually functioned only briefly. Israel unilaterally “disengaged” from Gaza in September 2005. Condoleezza Rice negotiated overnight on her birthday, 15 November 2005, to get Israel’s agreement on the modalities of getting goods and people into and out of the Gaza Strip.

The deal involved (1) real-time but remote control Israeli surveillance via video hookup from Kerem Shalom of (2) European Union monitors (based in the Israeli beachy-front city of Ashkelon) supervising (3) Palestinian Authority personnel processing all persons entering and exiting the Gaza Strip via Rafah.

Then, in January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in Palestinian Legislative Council elections — and the rest is actually not history, but still on-going.

Fatah was furious, and refused to join in a coalition government. The subsequent Hamas-led government was boycotted by Israel and the Quartet and the entire donor community. Palestinian Authority personnel, including security forces, could not be paid their salaries for over a year. Then, a short-lived Saudi-negotiated reconciliation produced a “National Unity” government that took office in March 2007. It was disbanded by the Palestinian Authority’s elected President Mahmoud Abbas in mid-June 2007, after a violent and dramatic Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security forces in the Gaza strip. Since then, Hamas runs the “de facto” governing administration in Gaza, while President Abbas, based in Ramallah, presides in the West Bank.

Israel has progressively tightened its squeeze on Gaza. At the same time, there are big problems between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas that have only exacerbated the squeeze.

And, Egyptian-brokered reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas have languished (at the moment, they appear to be taking place only Fatah and West Bank members of Hamas).

The opening of the crossings in and out of Gaza — including Rafah — is the carrot and the stick of this piece of political theater.

In January 2008, after tightened Israeli sanctions restricted fuel to the point that Gaza’s only power plant was forced to shut down, leaving Gaza City and more than half a million persons completely without electricity, Gazans (with the active assistance of Hamas) pulled down an Egyptian-built above-ground wall. Popular sympathy for their plight caused the Egyptian government to open the Rafah crossing, and Gazans streamed into Egypt to go shopping for a few days, before returning to their families and homes in the Gaza Strip. Then, after considerable Israeli pressure, the Rafah crossing was closed. Since then, it is only open intermittently, on short notice, and according to no regular schedule.

Today, as part of a wave of reaction to the Israeli raid at sea of the Freedom Flotilla headed to Gaza, the Rafah crossing was declared open again.

How long will it stay open this time?

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry al-Youm today reported that the opening of Rafah crossing is only temporary: “The governor of northern Sinai, Murad Muwafi, says President Hosni Mubarak ordered the opening of the border crossing to Gaza in the town of Rafah for several days. Muwafi says the opening of the crossing — which Egypt sealed after Gaza was taken over by Hamas militants in 2007 — is an effort to ‘alleviate the suffering of our Palestinian brothers after the Israeli attack’ on the flotilla. This was posted
here.

After a reported ten hours of deliberations on Monday to Tuesday, at Turkey’s request, the UN Security Council agreed on a statement which said, among other things, that “The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families. The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel. The council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination … The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasises the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860 [n.b., both of these UN Security Council resolutions say that the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authorurity is the legitimate power in Gaza]. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza…” Turkey is currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Turkey is also a long-standing member of NATO, and at a meeting in Brussels today the 28 nations in the organization called Tuesday for a “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation”, and “Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanded the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel”. The Jerusalem Post reported this news, but noted that Turkey “did not demand that the alliance take collective action against Israel, said a diplomat who attended the talks”. The JPost report is posted here.

And, one of Israel’s most respected authors, David Grossman, wrote today “How insecure, confused and panicky a country must be, to act as Israel acted! With a combination of excessive military force, and a fatal failure to anticipate the intensity of the reaction of those aboard the ship, it killed and wounded civilians, and did so – as if it were a band of pirates – outside its territorial waters. This assessment does not imply agreement with the motives, overt or hidden, and often malicious, of some participants in the Gaza flotilla. Not all its people are peace-loving humanitarians, and the declarations of some of them regarding the destruction of the state of Israel are criminal. But these facts are simply not relevant at the moment: such opinions do not deserve the death penalty. Israel’s actions are but the natural continuation of the shameful, ongoing closure of Gaza, which in turn is the perpetuation of the heavy-handed and condescending approach of the Israeli government, which is prepared to embitter the lives of a million and a half innocent people in the Gaza Strip, in order to obtain the release of one imprisoned soldier, precious and beloved though he may be; and this closure is the all-too-natural consequence of a clumsy and calcified policy, which again and again resorts by default to the use of massive and exaggerated force, at every decisive juncture, where wisdom and sensitivity and creative thinking are called for instead … The closure of Gaza has failed. It has failed for four years now. What this means is that it is not merely immoral, but also impractical, and indeed worsens the entire situation, as we are reminded at this very hour, and also harms the vital interests of Israel. The crimes of the leaders of Hamas, who have held the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit captive for four years without once allowing the Red Cross to visit him, and who fired thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip at Israeli towns and villages, are acts that must be firmly dealt with, utilising the various legal means available to a sovereign state. The ongoing siege of a civilian population is not one of them. I would like to believe that the shock of Monday’s frantic actions will lead to a re-evaluation of the whole idea of the closure, at last freeing the Palestinians from their suffering, and cleansing Israel of its moral stain. But our experience in this tragic region teaches that the opposite will occur: the mechanisms of violent response, the cycles of vengeance and hatred, Monday began a new round, whose magnitude cannot yet be foreseen. Above all, this insane operation shows how far Israel has declined. There is no need to overstate this claim. Anyone with eyes to see understands and feels it”. This comment was posted here.

YNet (with Reuters input) reported on Wednesday, after a two-part Obama-Netanyahu meeting, that “The feeling in the White House is that Netanyahu did not deliver on his promises, and that the meeting between the two leaders concluded with a deafening silence and a tense atmosphere”. This report is published here.

Netanyahu’s remarks on Jerusalem in a speech to AIPAC (the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee) — and the almost-simultaneous announcement back in Jerusalem of further movement in approving Jewish housing in Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem — had a severe impact on the Israeli government leader’s visit to the U.S.

***********************

We don’t know, yet, what Obama told Netanyahu in private. But we do know what the U.S. position on Jerusalem used to be…

A comment [written by bob on March 23, 2010 at 12:01 pm] on a post on Mondoweiss here, reminded me of material I put as a footnote to my last article for Salim Tamari’s Jerusalem Quarterly, here [this article was, contrary to its labelling, not a book review!]

.
In fact, this comment is identical to what I put in my story ….

Because some of my material had to be shortened in the editing process, I’ll reproduce more of what I wanted to publish in that article — this is all about previous U.S. positions on Jerusalem (1967 + 1969).

1.) U.S. Ambassador to the UN in July 1967, Arthur J, Goldberg:

On 14 July 1967, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg [Representing Lyndon Johnson] stated in explanation of his abstention in a vote that day on a resolution concerning the Israeli extension of its administration to Jerusalem that “this Assembly should have dealt with the problem by declaring itself against any unilateral change in the status of Jerusalem”.

Goldberg added that “During my own statement to the General Assembly on July 3, I said that the safeguarding of the Holy Places and freedom of access to them for all should be internationally guaranteed and the status of Jerusalem in relation to them should be decided not unilaterally but in consultation with all concerned. These statements represent the considered and continuing policy of the United States … My Government does not recognize that the administrative measures taken by the Government of Israel on 28 June can be regarded as the last word on the matter, and we regret that they were taken. We insist that the measures taken cannot be considered other than interim and provisional, and no prejudging the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. Unfortunately and regrettably, the statements of the Government of Israel on this matter have thus far, in our view, not adequately dealt with this situation”.

Goldberg also said that “the goal of the United States in the Middle East … is a durable peace and enduring settlement. We conceive of this goal as requiring throughout the area far more than a return to the temporary and fragile truce which erupted into tragic conflict on June 5. We are convinced, both by logic and the unforgettable experience of a tragic history, that there can be progress toward the durable peace in the entire area only if certain essential steps are taken. One immediate, obvious and imperative step is the disengagement of all forces and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to their own territory. A second and equally immediate, obvious and imperative step is the termination of any claims to a state of war or belligerency on the part of Arab states n the region”.

2.) U.S. Ambassador to the UN in July 1969, Charles Yost:

On 1 July 1969, [Richard Nixon’s Ambassador] Charles Yost told the UN Security Council that “Jerusalem occupies a very special place in all our minds and all our hearts as one of the holiest cities in the entire world. For Jerusalem is a sacred shrine to three of the world’s largest and oldest religious faiths: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. By virtue of that fact, the United States has always considered that Jerusalem enjoys a unique international standing and that no action should be taken there without full regard to Jerusalem’s special history and special place in the world community … The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in the city. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is occupied territory and hence subject to the provisions of international law governing the rights and obligations of an occupying power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interest, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concerns that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced and the rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered. My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize these measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem … A just and lasting peace in the Middle East is long and tragically overdue. It will not be found in terror bombings … any more than through unilateral attempts to alter the status of Jerusalem. It will be found only through the instruments and processes of negotiation, accommodation and agreement. It will come only through the exercise by the parties of the utmost restraint – not just along the cease-fire lines or in public statements, but also on the ground in Jerusalem itself … Our consideration of the situation in Jerusalem could provide a fitting occasion on which to insist once more that the parties to a dispute which keeps the world’s Holiest City in turmoil act responsibly to resolve the whole dispute and, until it is resolved, that they take no action anywhere which could further jeopardize its resolution”.YNetBy Aluf Benn

Netanyahu almost believed the crisis had passed, that he had survived by offering partial, noncommittal answers to the Americans’ questions. Shortly before meeting with Obama, Netanyahu even warned the Palestinians that should they continue to demand a freeze on construction, he would postpone peace talks by a year … But then calamity struck. At their White House meeting, Obama made clear to his guest that the letter Netanyahu had sent was insufficient and returned it for further corrections. Instead of a reception as a guest of honor, Netanyahu was treated as a problem child, an army private ordered to do laps around the base for slipping up at roll call.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158992.html

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) took the proposal to a meeting of Arab League Foreign Ministers last week, which on Wednesday gave him the go-ahead, the green light, the fig leaf he felt he needed.

Reports vary: the Arab League Foreign Ministers reportedly said the UN Security Council would be engaged straight away if there are no concrete results after four months. There are other reports that the U.S. has made, or will be asked to make, a pledge that it will not exercise its veto power in the UN Security Council to protect Israel from the consequences of a failure in the negotiations. There are reports that a definition of borders will — or will not be — the first item of business.

But, the Palestinian leadership’s previous position that it will not engage in talks as long as Israel does not halt its settlement activities throughout the West Bank (including East Jerusalem).

Despite the Arab League Foreign Ministers endorsement of Abbas’ proposition to participate in renewed negotiations, Ma’an News Agency reported, the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit — who was “present” during the Arab League Foreign Ministers meeting in Cairo on Wednesday — said a day later that “he believed Palestinians should not enter into direct talks with Israel in light of the current controversy over heritage sites. Speaking from Cairo after a meeting of the Follow-up Committee for the Arab Peace Initiative, Abul Gheit said delegates shared his sentiments, a stark contrast to the announcement of the Arab Foreign Ministers meeting, which gave its blessing for talks to continue. ‘The committee will not remain silent over all what is going on … The Arab Follow up Committee will not make any concessions and will not support direct negotiations unless Israel changes its positions’, he said.” It is difficult to reconcile these statements. The Ma’an report is posted here.

Many Palestinians — individually and as members of political movements ranging from Hamas to Fatah, as well as the various smaller “factions” of the Palestinian left — are scornful of the decision to re-engage in talks.

Yet, the resumption of talks appears almost inevitable — unless something extremely dramatic happens. There are very persistent rumors — it is a daily topic of conversation — about an impending “third intifada”. Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass, who lives in Ramallah, wrote Friday that “Judging from articles written by both Israelis and Palestinians, the next intifada is already in the air. They are predicting it is on the way and the most punctilious know it will be ‘popular’. Bil’in and Na’alin [n.b. where there have been regular Friday demonstrations against The Wall which are almost always dispersed with bursts of tear gas] are perceived as its models. Some Palestinians are guessing it will first erupt in Jerusalem”.

Hass also wrote that “the supreme challenge facing the initiators of the next uprising – if it indeed erupts – is to prevent its descent into a so-called armed struggle, which inevitably will expropriate the street and the struggle from the public. The militarization of the second intifada led to grave disasters – personal, collective and geo-political. Off the record, many admit this but a number of factors are still preventing frank, public debate. For years the theory of armed struggle, until liberation and independence are achieved, has been held sacred. Many people feel ill at ease to criticize the militarization publicly, as though they would thereby dishonor the dead, the wounded, the prisoners and their families … The truth is that the suicide attacks on civilians gave Israel a golden opportunity to implement plans, which had always existed, to confiscate more and more Palestinian lands, using the excuse of ’security’. The use of weapons did not stop the colonialist expansion of the Jewish settlements. On the contrary. And the use of weapons only accelerated a process Israel began in 1991: disconnecting the Gaza Strip from the West Bank … many of the young men played with weapons in order to obtain social and economic status in the movement and the PA. When Fatah people dare today to renounce the sanctity of the armed struggle, their collective reputation as corrupt automatically detracts from peoples’ faith in their arguments, even if those arguments are logical. Another challenge facing the initiators of the popular uprising, if it indeed erupts in the near future, is actually a challenge that Israeli society must face. Will it once again adopt the deceptive narrative of the IDF and the politicians (‘the Palestinians attacked us’, ‘terror’) and allow them, as in the two previous intifadas, to suppress the uprising using disproportionate and deadly means? These are the deadly means that, in the Palestinians’ eyes, make Israeli rule look like a series of bloody acts from 1948 to this day”. Amira Hass’ article can be read in full here.

Meanwhile — and unless the much-discussed third intifada, or something equally dramatic, happens — one Palestinian woman in the news business commented that there is now an attitude of “do what you have to do”; on the other hand, she said, “people don’t give a damn any more”.

The Fatah Central Committee (all wearing grey business suits with dress shirts + ties) met in the Muqata’a Presidential Headquarters in Ramallah on Saturday to discuss the impending U.S.-mediated talks . After the meeting, road traffic was held up for nearly ten minutes by Presidential security guards wearing olive green camouflague jumpsuits and burgundy red berets — holding big black automatic weapons with their fingers on the triggers — before an 11-car convoy (including two black vans each bristling with a crown of antennas that Palestinians say can temporarily disrupt local communications) escorting a black sedan carrying President Abbas careened around the corner as he travelled from the Muqata’a to his heavily-guarded home in small villa in northern Ramallah on Saturday afternoon.

The Executive Committee of the overall Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O. — which groups Fatah and the Palestinian “factions” other than Hamas) will meet to discuss the proposal on Sunday.

U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell arrived back in the region on Saturday night, and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is due to arrive on Sunday.

Haaretz’s veteran correspondent Akiva Eldar reported on Friday that “The United States government has committed to playing a role in indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and promised that if the talks were to fail, the U.S. will assign blame and take action, according to a document sent by the U.S. to the Palestinian Authority, which Haaretz obtained on Friday. The U.S. government sent the document to the Palestinians responding to their inquires regarding the U.S. initiative to launch indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians. ‘We expect both parties to act seriously and in good faith. If one side, in our judgment, is not living up to our expectations, we will make our concerns clear and we will act accordingly to overcome that obstacle’, it was written. This commitment by the U.S. was a determining factor in the Palestinians’ and the Arab League’s decision to agree to the U.S. proposal on indirect talks. The document also reveals that U.S. involvement will include ’sharing messages between the parties and offering our own ideas and bridging proposals’. The U.S. also emphasized that their main concern is establishing a Palestinian state. ‘Our core remains a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967′, the document read. Regarding the settlements, the U.S. noted its continued commitment to the road map, which dictates that Israel must freeze all construction in the settlements, and dismantle all outposts erected since March 2001″. This Akiva Eldar report can be view in full here.

But, the Jerusalem Post reported that “The indirect ‘proximity talks’ between Israel and the Palestinians likely to begin next week will not pick up where the discussions between then-prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas broke off in late 2008, The Jerusalem Post has learned. This issue has been a key sticking point for months, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejecting the Palestinian demand that the talks begin from the point where they ended with Olmert. Olmert offered the Palestinians nearly 94 percent of the West Bank, a land swap to compensate for most of the rest, an arrangement on Jerusalem, and the return of a small number of refugees into Israel as a ‘humanitarian gesture’ … The Post has also learned that the proximity talks will not immediately focus primarily on borders, another Palestinian demand, with Israel saying there can be no credible discussion of borders without first knowing what security arrangements will be in place”. This JPost report is published here.

Meanwhile, a Palestinian family of six from the West Bank village of Silwad was killed when their car crashed into an Israeli military Hummer on Friday near Bir Zeit, north of Ramallah, and their funerals took place on Saturday. The Jerusalem Post reported here, that “Apparently, the Palestinian car had a flat tire, causing it to divert from its course”. It is not clear what interaction there had been between the forces in the Hummer and the Palestinian family car, but the Jerusalem Post said Israeli police were investigating. But, very upset local Palestinian witnesses said on the Palestinian Television nightly news Friday saying that it was clear that Israel did not want peace.

Also on Friday, a fourteen-year-old Palestinian boy remained in critical condition after being shot in the head by Israeli Defense Forces using rubber bullets at a demonstration in Nabi Salah area near Ramallah.

Friday prayers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Haram ash-Sharif mosque esplanade [which Israelis call the Temple Mount, because it is believed that the Second and possibly also the First Jewish Temple were situated somewhere on that site] in the Old City of East Jerusalem ended very badly after a sermon critical of the Israeli government decision a week earlier to name the Ibrahimi (Abraham) Mosque in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem as “heritage” sites. Israeli Border Police stormed the mosque esplanade after, they said, Muslim worshippers began throwing rocks that hit Jewish worshippers standing at the Western Wall Plaza just below Al-Aqsa Mosque. Israeli forces used tear gas and stun grenades were used on the mosque esplanade and in various nearby areas of East Jerusalem as disturbances spread. Though the Israeli police have denied that rubber bullets were used, the Jerusalem Post reported that “Ron Krumer, a spokesman for Jerusalem’s Hadassah Medical Center, confirmed an Arab woman was wounded in the head by a rubber bullet [n.b. - it is not clear where in East Jerusalem this woman was when injured] and hospitalized in serious condition”. The Jerusalem Post also reported that “Having restored calm by use of stun grenades, and following helpful intervention by other Muslim worshipers to defuse the clash, police eventually withdrew in coordination with the Waqf to allow older worshipers to leave the Temple Mount. Eight of the injured policemen were hospitalized in light condition. Five suspects were arrested during the riots”. The Qalandia “border crossing”/checkpoint between Jerusalem and Ramallah was tense, but open, late on Friday afternoon. There were no Palestinian traffic police visible as Israeli soldiers were sitting in khaki-colored hummers surrounded by a number of large rocks that had clearly been thrown at them not long earlier. Two soldiers were outside the vehicles, escorting a young teenager they were bringing back under detention. Between 50 to 100 meters further inside, a group of at least 60 even younger boys were on both sides of the street, watching intently to see what the Israeli forces were doing. Some of these younger boys were sitting on a low concrete divider in the middle of the road, and there were large rocks placed on the divider next to them. Adults were going about their business as if nothing special was going on.

Earlier in the week, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barakat announced a radical new proposal to develop municipal planning — for the first time time since the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem in June 1967 — for various neighborhoods of East Jerusalem that would mean some Palestinian (and some Israeli) housing would be legalized, while other Palestinian housing would be demolished. The new proposal was presented as an attempt to offer some nominal equality between the two communities, but there was a great lack of clarity about how it would work out in actual practice. Immediately after the proposal was announced, Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the Jerusalem mayor to carry out further consultations with the local communities before proceeding.

Twenty-four hours later, renewed disturbances were reported in northern East Jerusalem areas of Shuafat refugee camp and Al-Isawiya, and reports linked these clashes to the post-Friday prayer events.

The UN Security Council on Friday “called for restraint by all sides and an early return to the negotiating table, while voicing their concern at the current ‘tense’ situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem”, according to a report by the UN News Centre [the UN uses British English spelling]. The report added that the current UNSC President for the month of March, Ambassador Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet of Gabon, told journalists after closed-door Council deliberations that the 15 members ‘urged all sides to show restraint and avoid provocative acts’, and ’stressed that peaceful dialogue was the only way forward and looked forward to an early resumption of negotiations’.” And, the report added, “The situation in the Middle East was also among the issues discussed yesterday during a meeting between Mr. Issoze-Ngondet, in his capacity as Council President, and General Assembly President Ali Treki [of Libya]“. This UN News Centre story is posted here.

Haaretz later reported that “The permanent Palestinian observer to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, welcomed the council statement, adding that the U.S. decision not to block it ‘is a signal that the United States wants this effort to succeed’ and Israel to restrain itself. A U.S. official, however, told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the American delegation had not agreed with the statement and said it was adopted due to what the official described as ‘procedural confusion’.”  This Haaretz report is posted here.

In a regular monthly briefing to the UN Security Council on 18 February, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe (of the U.S.) said: “We call for the resumption of talks on final status issues, implementation of Road Map commitments, continued efforts to improve economic and security conditions, and a different and more positive approach to Gaza.” Pascoe was speaking on behalf of UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon — and his statements usually represent an important organizational statement that is pre-negotiated with major powers, and certainly, in this case, with the Quartet of Middle East negotiators who include the UN, the U.S., Russia, and the European Union. According to a UN summary of his statement, Pascoe told the UNSC that “Israel had indicated its readiness to accept indirect talks proposed by George Mitchell, Special Envoy of the United States to the Middle East, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had been engaged in intensive consultations and had sought clarifications. ‘The Secretary-General hopes that President Abbas will move forward on the basis of that practical proposal so that serious talks can begin … He notes Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s stated commitment to a two-State solution, although confusion as to the Government’s intentions arises from statements by various Government officials’.” The UN statement said that Pascoe had urged “Israel to extend its current 10?month freeze on the building of settlements in the West Bank to a comprehensive freeze there and in East Jerusalem”. Pascoe stated that “The status of Jerusalem is to be determined through negotiations, and we believe that a way must be found through negotiations for Jerusalem to emerge as the capital of two States”. He noted, however, “that, since his last briefing on 27 January, the Israeli authorities had identified violations of restraint orders in at least 29 settlements, while the Defence Ministry had stated that it was issuing demolition and stop-work orders against violators”. On the other hand, Pascoe said, “The fact that Israel had not evicted Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem or demolished those homes was a ‘positive development which we hope will continue’, and he called for “the reopening of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, in accordance with Road Map obligations”. This is a point that European Union leaders have recently emphasized.

Pascoe also told the UNSC that Israel’s ongoing closure of crossing points into Gaza is “counterproductive”, and “causing unacceptable hardship for the civilian population, more than half of whom are children”.  A UN press release describing his statement is posted here.

There has been recent high-level mention (by American as well as French officials) about the possibility of finally taking up a long-standing Russian proposal to hold a conference to push for progress in Israeli-Palestinian and/or Israeli-Arab negotiations — and news reports have suggested that such a conference may be convened in Moscow on or around March 19th.

That is, if nothing dramatic happens in the meantime…

He told journalists in Ramallah (according to a press release issued by the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department that he heads) that “the move to issue a Security Council resolution recognizing the Palestinian state on the borders of June 4th, 1967 has begun”.

Reaction has continued to roll in.

Israeli ministers have threatened to annex Jewish settlements in the West Bank if the Palestinians make such a move.

Israeli statements mix references to a “unilateral” Palestinian declaration of a state on 1967 borders with what is clearly being planned as a multilateral move to bring the matter to the UN Security Council, and ask for recognition of such a state as well as full UN membership. Sa’eb Erekat said that this strategy has been approved by Arab states.

Erekat also said on Sunday that “the Palestinian leadership calls on the international community to support this move” and he “called on European countries to back the Palestinian decision by expressing their commitment to international law to end the Israeli occupation and save the two-state solution”.

The Voice of America’s Lisa Bryant reported today that “Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Foreign Minister Carl Bildt of Sweden, which holds the rotating European Union presidency, said the time is not right for recognizing a Palestinian state.
‘I do not think we are there yet’, he said. ‘I would hope that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state, but there has to be one first. So I think that is somewhat premature. We have said previously if you go back to what the European Union has said that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state, but the conditions are not there as of yet’. Bildt said the European Union is discussing other steps to increase support for Palestinian aspirations … [However] at a press conference later in the day, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana offered strong backing for an eventual Palestinian state. ‘I do not think it is too early to have a Palestinian state. We would [have liked] to have a
Palestinian state years back’, Solana said. ‘The point is … you know the negotiations have failed so far. [But a Palestinian state] is something the European Union has been defending for years back’.” This VOA report can be viewed in full http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-17-voa22.cfm

Solana kicked off this whole process, last July, in a speech he gave in London saying “We have to act now. The key question is: how can we get a political solution? The parameters are well known: the Clinton Parameters, Taba and even the Geneva Initiative. A state is not only a set of well functioning institutions providing security and services to its citizens. The Palestinian Authority is working hard in that direction. President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad have to be praised even if much remains to be done. A state is essentially a geographical space over which a legitimate government has control over population and natural resources. So we must first define the space. This means borders. And if we insist so forcefully on the need to freeze Israeli settlements, it is precisely because their continuing expansion is an obstacle to the design of this physical space. Settlements not only cast doubts on the viability of any Palestinian State. They add, in their day-to-day lives, to the frustration of the Palestinian people. Let me give you some figures. In 1993, when the Oslo agreement was reached, there were 75.000 settlers in the West Bank. In 2008, there were 290.000 of them. In 2008, the Israeli population inside the Green Line grew 1,6%. The number of settlers increased by 4,9%. In addition, the situation in Gaza is unacceptable. Changing the realities there is a pre-requisite for re-uniting the land and the people that will form the future Palestinian state. Whether we like it or not, Hamas will have to be part of the solution. I want to thank Egypt for their work on that. Defining the borders would solve the issue of territory, control over water resources and a good part of the equation for Jerusalem. And it will help tackle the question of settlements. Because it will establish on which side each various population centres will be. The point of departure are the 1967 borders. Territorial exchanges can be negotiated between the parties, on the basis of the 1967 line. The various territorial offers fluctuate between 6 and 2%. It should not be impossible to find a figure. The parties can negotiate within this margin, not outside. Nobody rejects the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiation. The Arab League accepts them. The EU has said the same. The United States have also made clear its attachment to them. I have spelt out the broad coalition which is behind this effort. There will be no solution without an active Arab contribution. The Arab Peace Initiative is key. Maybe it has to be made more operative. Its binary character – all or nothing – has to be nuanced. But having the Arab countries reacting in a positive way, with concrete actions, to every step will contribute immensely to success. The next ingredient for success is a real mediation. The parameters are defined. The mediator has to set the timetable too. If the parties are not able to stick to it, then a solution backed by the International community should will be put on the table. After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution. This should include all the parameters of borders, refugees, Jerusalem and security arrangements. It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimise the end of claims. International monitoring will then be crucial. As will be guarantees and contributions offered by the international parties regarding security, economic aid and refugees. We all will have to make deposits to that end. Arab states would immediately establish full diplomatic relations with Israel. I strongly believe the time has come to, finally, bring this conflict to an end. The international consensus is there. But time is of the essence. The second half of this year is crucial if we want to offer a real choice to the Palestinian people when they vote in January 2010. Something radically different from a choice between violence and desperation. … Never before had we have such a common line. We cannot afford wasting this opportunity. It is time to act”. The full text of Solana’s statement in July can be found here.

Carl Bildt had plenty of time, if he disagreed, to react before today. Why did he wait until now?

Ma’an News Agency later reported that in a news conference in Egypt, Palestinian President Abbas confirmed the Palestinian initiative “in accordance with the recent Arab Peace Initiative committee’s support”. According to the Ma’an account, “Abbas confirmed the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to appealing to the UN Security Council for a
resolution recognizing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with Arab support. The PA completely rejects former Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz’s plan to establish a state on temporary borders, Abbas said” Ma’an added that Abbas “further criticized Hamas’ approval of the temporary borders plan”. This Ma’an report is posted
here. Without the full text of the transcript, it is impossible to know what, exactly Abbas actually said about Hamas’ position on this proposal. What has otherwise been reported is that Hamas is sceptical, and has said something like why stop at the 1967 borders — and why not go for all of [the former British Mandate of] Palestine.

Also in Cairo, as Ma’an reported, Sa’eb Erekat maintained that “ ‘This is the right time’ to seek Security Council recognition of a Palestinian state … in response to comments made by EU officials calling the move ‘premature’.” Ma’an said that “Erekat responded almost immediately through an interview with Agence France Presse (AFP) from Cairo … Erekat argued that the EU recognized the State of Kosovo before other official channels supported its claim for independence. Sweden is not alone in determining EU policy, Erekat then quipped, noting other EU countries support
the Palestinian decision and adding that as of yet, the EU does not have a common foreign policy”. This Ma’an report can be read in full here.

Meanwhile, at the State Department in Washington, D.C., spokesman Ian Kelly had this exchange with journalists:
“QUESTION: On the peace process, Israel has approved today the construction of 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem. How do you view this approval at this specific time?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think, Michel, you’ve heard us say many times that we believe that neither party
should engage in any kind of actions that could unilaterally preempt or appear to preempt negotiations. And I think that we find the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval of the – approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem as dismaying. This is at a time when we’re working to re-launch negotiations, and we believe that these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. So we object to this, and we object to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. And – just to repeat what we’ve said all along, our position on Jerusalem is clear. We believe that the – that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties.
QUESTION: Can you tell us, did this come up in Ambassador Mitchell’s meetings in London yesterday? Apparently, we were told that he met an advisor to Netanyahu, asked them to not permit these new buildings, and then that request was flatly turned down.
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Andy, I just don’t want to get into the substance of these negotiations. They’re
sensitive. I think you’ve seen the Israeli – some Israeli press reports that did report that this was raised in the meetings. This is – I mean, these kinds of unilateral actions are exactly the kind of actions that we think that both sides should refrain from at a time when we’re trying to start the negotiations again. But I don’t want to get into the substance of the discussions yesterday in London.
QUESTION: Would you steer us away from not believing the Israeli press reports?
MR. KELLY: I just don’t want to get into the substance. I’m not going to steer you one way or the
other on it.
QUESTION: Where’s Senator Mitchell today?
QUESTION: How long is the U.S. going to continue to tolerate Israel’s violation of international law? I mean, soon it’s not even going to be possible – there’s not going to be any land left for the Palestinians to establish an independent state.
MR. KELLY: Well, again, this is a – we understand the Israeli point of view about Jerusalem. But we
think that all sides right now, at this time when we’re expending such intense efforts to try and get the two sides to sit down, that we should refrain from these actions, like this decision to move forward on an approval process for more housing units in East Jerusalem.
QUESTION: But should U.S. inaction, or in response to Israel’s actions, then be interpreted as some sort of about-face in policy – the President turning his back on the promises he’s made to the Palestinians?
MR. KELLY: You’re – okay, you’re using language that I wouldn’t use. I mean, again, our focus is to get these negotiations started. We’re calling on both parties to refrain from actions, from – and from rhetoric that would impede this process. It’s a challenging time, and we just need to focus on what’s important here, and that’s –
QUESTION: Well, what actions (inaudible) the Palestinians taken recently that would impede progress?
MR. KELLY: Well, as I say, we would discourage all unilateral actions, and I think –
QUESTION: Fair enough. But the Palestinians –
MR. KELLY: We talked yesterday –
QUESTION: — don’t appear to be taking any unilateral actions. It seems to be (inaudible).
MR. KELLY: Well, we did talk yesterday about the – and I want to make sure I get my language right
here – about the – discouraging any kind of unilateral appeal for United Nations Security Council recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That would fall in that category of unilateral actions.
QUESTION: Okay. So the Palestinian call for this, which was rejected by both the EU and yourself
yesterday, you’re putting that on the same level as them building – as the Israelis building —
MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that. You just said that, Matt. I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that –
QUESTION: Well, you’re saying you’re calling on both sides to stop doing these things.
MR. KELLY: We are.
QUESTION: Yeah. But the rhetoric from the –
MR. KELLY: I’m not saying they’re equivalent.
QUESTION: — Palestinians is not actually constructed in a –
MR. KELLY: I’m not saying they’re equivalent. I’m just saying that we – they – we have to treat these
things as sensitive issues.
QUESTION: You said a little bit earlier that we understand the Israeli point of view on Jerusalem. Can you explain what you mean by that?
MR. KELLY: Well, you have to ask – I’m not going to stand up here and characterize the Israeli point
of view on –
QUESTION: No. I’m just asking you, if you understand the Israeli point of view on Jerusalem, why are
you saying that this is not a good thing?
MR. KELLY: I’m not saying we support the Israeli point of view. We understand it.
QUESTION: Right. And then, last one on this, you characterized this decision by the planning commission as dismaying.
MR. KELLY: Yes.
QUESTION: You can’t come up with anything stronger than ‘dismaying’? I mean, this flies in the face of everything you’ve been talking about for months and months and months.
MR. KELLY: It’s dismaying.
QUESTION: Yeah, you can’t offer a condemnation of it or anything like that? (Laughter.) I mean, who is in charge of the language here.
MR. KELLY: I have said what I have said, Mr. Lee.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Would you say, though, that your own envoy has – does he have any leverage at this point, given the fact that the Israelis not only refuse, but blatantly have ignored his wishes on this?
MR. KELLY: Well, let’s take a step back and let’s also recognize that both sides agree on the goal, and that goal is a comprehensive peace. That goal is two states living side by side in peace and security and cooperation. So that is why we continue to be committed to this. That is why Special Envoy Mitchell meets with both sides at every opportunity, and why we are continuing to expend such efforts on this. So let’s remember that, that we do share a common goal.
QUESTION: Well, where’s Senator Mitchell today?
MR. KELLY: I believe Senator Mitchell is on his way back today.
QUESTION: Could you give us just a brief synopsis of the progress that Senator Mitchell has made in
his months on the job?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think we have – we’ve gotten –
QUESTION: Yeah, maybe if the –
MR. KELLY: — both sides to agree on this goal. We have gotten both sides –
QUESTION: Ian, they agreed on the goal years ago. I mean, that’s not –
MR. KELLY: Well, I think that we – this government –
QUESTION: You mean you got the Israel Government to say, yes, we’re willing to accept a Palestinian
state? You got Netanyahu to say that, and that’s his big accomplishment?
MR. KELLY: That is an accomplishment.
QUESTION: But previous Israeli administration – previous Israeli governments had agreed to that already.
MR. KELLY: Okay, all right.
QUESTION: So in other words, the bottom line is that, in the list of accomplishments that Mitchell has
come up with or established since he started, is zero.
MR. KELLY: I wouldn’t say zero.
QUESTION: Well, then what would you say it is?
MR. KELLY: Well, I would say that we’ve gotten both sides to commit to this goal. They have – we have – we’ve had a intensive round or rounds of negotiations, the President brought the two leaders together in New York. Look –
QUESTION: But wait, hold on. You haven’t had any intense –
MR. KELLY: Obviously –
QUESTION: There haven’t been any negotiations.
MR. KELLY: Obviously, we’re not even in the red zone yet, okay.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: I mean, we’re not – but it’s – we are less than a year into this Administration, and I think we’ve accomplished more over the last year than the previous administration did in eight years.
QUESTION: Well, I – really, because the previous administration actually had them sitting down talking
to each other. You guys can’t even get that far.
MR. KELLY: All right.
QUESTION: I’ll drop it.
MR. KELLY: Give us a chance. Thank you, Matt.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: It seems Senator Mitchell is focusing in his meetings on the Israeli side. Is he – does he have any plans to talk with the Palestinians, or there is no need now for that?
MR. KELLY: Well, he, as I say, he had meetings yesterday with the Israelis. He’s coming back to the
U.S. now. He always stands ready to talk to both sides. There are no plans at this moment to meet with the Palestinian side”…

The Palestinian leadership can’t back down now, not after their flip-flop over the Goldstone report, and not after the elections proclamation and cancellation … though Sa’eb Erekat said that he never said this proposal to go to the UNSC would be made immediately.

She added that “The 15 council members have already received copies of the 575-page report by an expert panel chaired by South African Judge Richard Goldstone. But the General Assembly in a resolution adopted Thursday asks the secretary-general to transmit it, which will make the report an official Security Council document … The Security Council, however, is highly unlikely to take any action. The United States has repeatedly said the report belongs in the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, which appointed the Goldstone panel. Diplomats said Russia and China also don’t want the Security Council dealing with human rights issues. All three countries have veto power in the Security Council. [n.b. France, which also has the veto power, has also indicated that it would oppose any UNSC action on the Goldstone report...] The International Criminal Court can only investigate crimes on the territory of nations that recognize its jurisdiction, unless a case is referred to it by the Security Council. The Palestinian Authority recognized the court in January and urged prosecutors to launch an investigation into crimes committed during the Gaza conflict, but prosecutors are investigating whether this is possible since there is no state of Palestine”. This AP report was picked up and published by The Independent, here.

Amnesty International issued a statement after the vote in the UN General Assembly saying that the body’s adoption of “key recommendations of the Goldstone report on the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel earlier this year is vitally important for ensuring that those, on both sides, who committed war crimes and other violations of international law will now be held to account … Almost one year on, those who suffered war crimes and other gross violations of their rights, are still waiting for justice … [And] “It is our fervent hope that today’s UN General Assembly resolution will act as a catalyst to make justice and reparation a reality for the victims on both sides”.

In the statement, Yvonne Terlingen, Head of Amnesty International’s Office at the UN, said: “We deeply regret that the USA and the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia voted against the resolution and failed to support the need for accountability, justice and human rights that are so vital for victims of abuses in this conflict … We urge the UN Secretary-General to now appoint independent experts in human rights and international humanitarian law to assess whether any investigations that are conducted by Israel and Hamas meet the required international standard”.

[UPDATE: The Jerusalem Post, in an article published after this posting, wrote that "44 abstained, including most of the EU countries that had sought unsuccessfully to soften the resolution's language prior to the vote. Switzerland was the only European country to endorse the report. Russia, which does not often side with Israel in these matters, abstained ... Following the Goldstone vote, which US Ambassador Susan Rice did not attend, the US mission circulated an 'explanation of vote' by Deputy Permanent Representative Alejandro Wolff, who voted in Rice's place. 'As the United States made clear in Geneva, we believe that the Goldstone Report is deeply flawed', Wolff said, citing an unbalanced focus on Israel, sweeping legal conclusions and overreaching recommendations, and a failure to adequately assign responsibility to Hamas for basing its operations in civilian-populated areas. He stressed that the matter should be handled at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva alone, saying discussion in the Security Council would be 'unconstructive'. Stating that the US 'strongly supports accountability' for human rights and humanitarian law violations, Wolff said the best way to end human suffering is to bring comprehensive peace to the region, including a two-state solution. 'As we urge the parties to restart permanent-status negotiations leading to the creation of a Palestinian state, we should all be seeking to advance the cause of peace - and doing nothing to hinder it', he said".  This JPOST article is published here.]

The Amnesty International statement noted that UNSG BAN has been asked to submit what it called a “progress report”  to the UN General Assembly in three months’ time.

The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva still has on its books the first resolution it adopted on the Goldstone report, in early October, calling for review of the situation in March 2010.

Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a measure by an overwhelming vote (344-to-36) calling the Goldstone report “irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy”, and calling on the Obama Administration to “strongly and unequivocally oppose” any discussion of it at the UN.

A post by Matthew Rothschild on The Progressive website said that “Dennis Kucinich had it right when he denounced the House majority for going along with this. His statement is so powerful that I’m excerpting it at length here: ‘Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt … Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist. Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian. The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility of all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the ‘Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right: resolution.’ . . . How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation? How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to human security of jobs, education and health care? … all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim”.  This posting can be read in full here.

Dennis Kucinich is a Democratic Congressman from Ohio who was re-elected a year ago to a seventh term in the U.S, House of Representatives.  The full text of his statement on this House resolution, Entiltled “Truth, Human Dignity, and the Goldstone Report”, can be seen on his website, here

On the third day of the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, Kucinich was sending a letter to UNSG BAN Ki-Moon “urging the United Nations to establish an independent inquiry of Israel’s war against Gaza. The attacks on civilians represent collective punishment, which is a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm). The perpetrators of attacks against Israel must also be brought to justice, but Israel cannot create a war against an entire people in order to attempt to bring to justice the few who are responsible. The Israeli leaders know better. The world community, which has been very supportive of Israel’s right to security and its right to survive, also has a right to expect Israel to conduct itself in adherence to the very laws which support the survival of Israel and every other nation … Israel is leveling Gaza to strike at Hamas, just as they pulverized south Lebanon to strike at Hezbollah. Yet in both cases civilian populations were attacked, countless innocents killed or injured, infrastructure targeted and destroyed, and civil law enforcement negated. All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law. Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable. It is time for the UN to not just call for a cease-fire, but for an inquiry as to Israel’s actions.”  This letter can be viewed in full here.

And on the very same day that Kucinich wrote his letter, former UN Under-Secretary-General, and novelist, Shashi Tharoor was penning an article saying that Indians envied Israel’s ability to operate as it pleased [see our posts, here and here - Tharoor's article was posted on the Huffington Post with the title (he wrote it) "India longs to follow Israeli path of reprisal"] .

Shashi Tharoor wrote his article on 29 December — and did not bother to correct it even before it was published in the Huffington Post on 19 January, one day after two unilateral cease-fires (Israel’s and Hamas’) went into effect in Gaza.

Then, after reaction to that piece, Tharoor wrote again something he called “Apologia”, which was published in the Huffington Post on 27 January — a somewhat dizzy retraction in which he wrote: “Many of you have read my article as endorsing Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and deplored the article’s apparent indifference to the humanitarian tragedy that followed.  I regret the misunderstanding of the intent and thrust of the piece, which was not written as a commentary on the conflict in Gaza.  [!]  When I wrote the article I was thinking only about india/pakistan – the assault on Gaza had just begun when I put my fingers to the keyboard … Obviously I had no sense at the time of writing of the scale of the israeli action that was to follow and the toll that would be taken in civilian lives.  But in any case the article says India cannot, should not and would not do what Israel has done … Using the Israel parallel – at a time when my email inbox was brimming with messages of the ‘why can’t we do the same as Israel?’ variety – was just a way of bringing greater attention onto India’s dilemma and its anguish, while arguing that there is no ‘Gaza option’ for India.  Of course I should have realized that using an unfolding event as a peg would make my argument hostage to the way that situation evolved. Inevitably, some readers would judge the article in the light of what has happened in the two weeks after I wrote it. Had Israel taken out a few rocket sites and withdrawn in 3 or 4 days, as I had expected, perhaps the analogy would have seemed less offensive” …

Despite his inability to recognize or correctly assess, by 29 December, what was happening in Gaza, Shashi Tharoor — having won election this past spring to India’s parliament as a representative of the Congress Party in Kerala State — has since become India’s Foreign Minister, in yet another triumph of style over substance…

UPDATE:  Yaakov Katz has written on Sunday in the Jerusalem Post that “Amid Israeli efforts to bolster military ties and export military hardware, the Indian Chief of Staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor arrived in Israel on Saturday for talks with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi … Israel and India enjoy close defense ties and Israel last year overtook Russia as the number-one supplier of military platforms to India after breaking the $1 billion mark in new contracts signed annually.  According to press reports, India is interested in working with Israel on submarine-launched cruise missiles, ballistic missile defense systems, laser-guided systems, satellites as well as unmanned aerial vehicles.  The visit to Israel comes just before the first anniversary of the attacks last November in Mumbai against a hotel as well as a Chabad House, during which over 170 people were killed, including the Chabad emissary to Mumbai and his pregnant wife.  Since the attack, Israel has assisted India in beefing up its security, particularly along its coast, where the terrorists allegedly infiltrated from nearby Pakistan.  Last Tuesday, Kapoor was quoted [by news sites] as saying that … ‘We have to take all steps to prevent any Mumbai-type attacks. We cannot rule out apprehensions of such possibilities … India cannot afford to witness a repeat of 26/11″ …  Yaakov Katz’s report in the JPost can be viewed in full here.

*************************

Here is the result of the voting in the UN General Assembly
In favour of the resolution on the Goldstone report: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent: Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

According to Ynet, Shalom said, “I am more optimistic that Ban won’t pass the report on to the Security Council … I told him that I request the report not reach the Security Council”. Palestinian officials have considered asking the UN Secretary-General to forward the Goldstone report to the UN Security Council. We have previously predicted that this will not happen.

However, at Palestinian insistence (after a couple of flip-flops), the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva has now adopted a resolution “recommending” the Goldstone report to the UN General Assembly, which is reportedly looking a dates when the report might be discussed before the end of the current session in late December. According to Shalom, YNet said, the UNSG offered the assurance that “The report will not be passed on for discussion at the General Assembly until I examine the decision to adopt it.” This is a bit mysterious, and could be a mistake.  Ynet also reported that Shalom said the UNSG added: “You know it [the Goldstone report] can reach the assembly (via a third party country). I answered saying there is a difference between him taking it forward to the General Assembly and a country like Libya doing so.”   Shalom also said: “I told the secretary-general that the report was composed by a committee that was set up in sin which included Iran, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.  “Our army is a moral one. We paused combat every day in order to allow for the delivery of aid to Gaza’s civilians, we phoned people at their homes in order to warn them before striking terrorists that took shelter among them. No other army in the world would do that”.   This YNet report can be read in full here.

The mysterious reported remark — “The report will not be passed on for discussion at the General Assembly until I examine the decision to adopt it” — can probably explained as confusion.   The UNSG does not have the power to block a decision by the General Assembly, if that’s what is meant.

The spokesperson for the President of the UN General Assembly (Jean Victor Nkolo) said in response to a question from a journalist at the DPI noon briefing at UNHQ/NY on Friday:

Question: “Can you just give us an update on what the thinking in the office of the2 President is on the Goldstone Report? How to proceed with it, what the options are and when a decision will be made.

Spokesperson: “We have still not received the final and formal report from the Human Rights Council. We received a week ago the advance unedited copy. So we will be receiving very soon, I presume, the physical formal and final copy, and the President will make, will hold consultations with all concerned parties in order to schedule a debate on this question. This will take place, I think, the consultations will take place very, very soon. But we need to receive that report first and foremost”.

Question: “When you say… like, they mailed it? How do you get it?”

Spokesperson: “This report, if it has to be shared with parties ?? the Member States, we first have to receive the formal and final copy. What we have received so far is an advance unedited version. We really need to have that in our hands, physically”. The full transcript of this briefing is posted here.

Meanwhile, Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spoke to UNSG BAN in a phone call late on Thursday, with the same request regarding the Goldstone report, according to a dispatch from the German News Agency DPA published by Haaretz: “Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to keep the Goldstone Commission report on Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip from advancing to further votes within the international body … In a telephone conversation late Thursday, Lieberman reiterated his stance that bringing the report for vote in the Security Council or at a General Assembly would harm Middle East peace talks. The Palestinians should not be allowed to hold negotiations with Israel on a local level while fighting against it in the international sphere, he said, according to a Hebrew statement from his office Friday. Mentioning by name Cuba, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he also charged that the automatic condemnations of Israel by states with poor human rights records made ‘the international system into one characterized by hypocrisy and one which acts according to prejudices … A distorted international reality has been created in which at any international forum there is an automatic majority of states which are very far from being concerned about issues of human rights”. The DPA report recalled that “South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who authored the damning report, earlier this week accused Lieberman of using the probe to cover his own desire to see the Israeli-Palestinian peace process stall. Goldstone made the claim in a conference call on Sunday with 150 U.S. rabbis from left-leaning organizations. ‘That just is a shallow, I believe, false allegation’, he said. ‘What peace process are they talking about? There isn’t one. The Israeli foreign minister doesn’t want one at all’.” This report is published here.

The matter was also discussed in the regular DPI noon briefing on Friday:
Question: “Can you just give us a readout on the phone call between Mr. Ban Ki-moon and the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Lieberman? There were reports that Mr. Lieberman said that if the Goldstone report goes to the Security Council, this will be end of the peace process. Is this the case?”

Associate Spokesperson: “Well, I don’t speak for Mr. Lieberman. I can confirm that the Secretary-General spoke by telephone to Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on 22 October, which was yesterday. On the Goldstone report, the Secretary-General emphasized the importance he attaches to addressing the issues of justice and accountability ever since his visit to Gaza last January. He reiterated his call for credible domestic investigations by all parties into any allegations of serious human rights violations committed during the conflict. That’s all I have to say on that call.”.
…
Associate Spokesperson: “I can give you the full readout of that. The Secretary-General met today with Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom. They discussed a broad range of issues of mutual interest, including Iran’s nuclear programme, Lebanon and resolution 1701 (2006), the UN’s Gaza reconstruction proposal, the Goldstone report, and the Board of Inquiry led by Ian Martin. On the humanitarian front, the Secretary-General asked for a positive response by Israel to the UN’s Gaza reconstruction proposal, and he expressed his serious concern at the adverse impact that further delay would cause. So, that’s that”.

***********************

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu told Lally Weymouth in an interview published in the Washington Post today that “We’re looking into that [an independent inquiry into the Gaza war] not because of the Goldstone report but because of our own internal needs.  The best way to defuse this issue is to speak the truth because Israel was defending itself with just means against an unjust attack. Serious countries have to think about adapting the laws of war in the age of terrorism and guerrilla warfare. If the terrorists believe they have a license to kill by choosing to kill from behind civilian lines, that’s what they’ll do again and again. What exactly is Israel supposed to do?”.  Specifically on the Goldstone report, Netanyahu said that:  “I thought there were limits to hypocrisy but I was obviously wrong. The so-called human rights commission accuses Israel that legitimately defended itself against Hamas of war crimes. Mind you, Hamas . . . committed four. First, they called for the destruction of Israel, which under the U.N. Charter is considered a war crime — incitement to genocide; secondly, they fired deliberately on civilians; third, they hid behind civilians; and fourth, they’ve been holding our captured soldier, Gilad Shalit, without access to the Red Cross, for three years.   And who gets accused of criminal behavior at the end of the day? Israel that sent thousands of text messages and made tens of thousands of cellular phone calls to Palestinian civilians [to warn them to evacuate]“.

One thing that can be said: these Israeli officials all appear to be reading from the same page…

UPDATE:  The Jerusalem Post reported that “Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Saturday reiterated his opinion that Israel should not appoint a commission to investigate the actions of IDF officers and soldiers during Operation Cast Lead.  Barak stressed that he fully trusts the operational investigations conducted by the IDF, adding that ‘there is no army in the world that investigates its actions like the IDF’. The defense minister was responding to remarks by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who told the Washington Post that Israel was looking into the possibility of opening an internal investigation into the accusations ‘not because of the Goldstone Report but because of our own internal needs’.”   This JPost report is posted here.

UPDATE TWO: On Saturday night, the Israeli Government Press Office sent to journalists this clarification from the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser: “In his remarks to The Washington Post today (Saturday), 24.10.09, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not imply that there is a need to establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the accusations included in the Goldstone report. In his full remarks to the newspaper, the Prime Minister made it clear that Israel routinely investigates incidents of the kind that occurred during Operation Cast Lead, according to existing procedures, without any connection to the Goldstone report. In Prime Minister Netanyahu’s words, as stated in the full interview, Israel investigated the events even before the report was adopted by the UN Human Rights council in Geneva: ‘We have (already) investigated 24 of 36 claims; [we did so] not because of UN decisions but because this is our practice. We have investigated and even tried people in the past for improper behavior because we are a democratic country’. When asked, ‘So you’re not in favor of an independent inquiry?’ Prime Minister Netanyahu replied: ‘We’re looking into that not because of the Goldstone report but because of our own internal needs’. The flow of the interview makes it clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu intended to say that Israel is already examining the events according to existing internal procedures, not that it is ‘considering’ investigating the course of events themselves by other means. In his full remarks, the Prime Minister even hinted that if there was any need to investigate anything – it was how the Goldstone commission was established in the first place: ‘It would be an interesting investigation to check how the Goldstone report was born in the first place’.”

***********************

Actress Mia Farrow, a celebrity “Goodwill Ambassador” for the UN children’s agency UNICEF, who addressed a session of the UN Security Council about her incomprehension concerning the insufficient international action on the situation in Darfour, visited the occupied Palestinian territory (Gaza and the West Bank) last week.

***********************

UPDATE THREE: The U.S. Congress is reportedly preparing new legislation to compel the government to reject the Goldstone report because it is “one-sided”…

This is an unusual situation.

The UN Security Council is not on the immediate horizon in any case — the Goldstone report itself has recommended that both Israel and Hamas be given six months to set up their own independent investigations before the UN Security Council would be asked to get involved. So far, the U.S., Russia, and now reportedly China are now opposed to discussing the Goldstone report in the Security Council. The UN Security Council could, if it agreed, eventually ask the International Criminal Court in the Hague to look at certain aspects of the Israeli military operation, and of the Palestinian firing of rockets, mortars, and missiles at Israeli territory from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva voted last week to “recommend” the Goldstone report to the UN General Assembly, which may consider the matter before its current session is adjourned in December.

South Africa’s Justice Richard Goldstone, who worked against the apartheid system through the country’s legal system, and who subsequently was appointed by the UN as a former prosecutor for the International Tribunals on the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, was working under a mandate from the UN Human Rights Council when he headed its Fact-Finding Mission into the Gaza war.

According to the Israel website YNet, South Africa’s Justice Richard Goldstone has just said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television that “while he is not an expert on the political power ties in the UN, he believes these three nations [Russia, France and China] will refuse to move forward with the report” In the same story, Goldstone said that “the report could still be brought before the UN General Assembly, and added that if the UN refuses to discuss this report, it would be the end of UN involvement in international crises”. This is posted here.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who is visiting officials in Israel and the Palestinian Authority while her to attend the second annual conference of world leaders hosted by Israeli State President Shimon Peres, said after meeting with Peres on Tuesday that “the US would ‘continue to stand by Israel as a loyal friend in the fight against the Goldstone report’, according to a statement from Peres’s office on Wednesday”. This report can be read in full here.

Meanwhile, according to a report in Haaretz, Goldstone has “challenged Barack Obama’s administration to justify its claims that the report is one-sided and flawed … Goldstone told Al Jazeera on Thursday that he is still waiting for the U.S. to clarify its claim that the report has a number of flaws. ‘The Obama administration joined our recommendation calling for full and good-faith investigations, both in Israel and in Gaza, but said that the report was flawed’, Goldstone told Al Jazeera … ‘I have yet to hear from the Obama administration what the flaws in the report that they have identified are. I would be happy to respond to them, if and when I know what they are’, he said. The remarks follow a U.S. opposition to a UN Human Rights Council resolution on the report in Geneva last Friday … Meanwhile, a recent poll shows that more than two-thirds of the Israeli public opposes an Israeli inquiry panel into the events of Operation Cast Lead. The poll, Geocartography Institute directed by Professor Avi Degani, shows that only 32 percent of those questioned supported the idea of an investigative committee on the Goldstone report. [And] On Wednesday night, 30 Sderot residents arrived at the UN offices in Jerusalem to personally pass on a petition opposing the Goldstone report, signed by 100 thousand people from around the world”.  This Haaretz report is posted here.

In another report on YNet, Goldstone said: “I’ve no doubt, many of the critics — the overwhelming majority of critics — have not read the report”. And, he added, the criticism had become personal.  These remarks are posted here.

Goldstone said in the Al-Jazeera interview that “We didn’t look at the justification for the military operations at all — we took them as a given”.    He said that the Fact-Finding Mission he headed didn’t question Israel’s right to self-defense, and didn’t look at the right to use force.  Instead, he said, “We looked at the way force was actually used”.

The Jerusalem Post noted that “When asked about Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s initiative to change the international law concerning states fighting terrorist groups, Goldstone said … ‘I think it’s sad… Israel is clutching at straws. International law can’t be changed just because one side doesn’t like the laws of war’, Goldstone said. ‘I think it’s wrong, very unfortunate and inappropriate’, Goldstone said of the Israeli response to the report compiled by the UN fact-finding commission he led. When asked whether an Israeli probe into the IDF’s conduct during the Gaza operation could be trusted, Goldstone expressed his confidence in the Israeli legal system and experts. ‘I’ve got no doubt at all that if the Israeli government was prepared to set up an independent commission to investigate and to recommend prosecutions, I’m sure it could do that and I would have confidence in such an investigation’, he said. Goldstone warned that if an internal investigation were not conducted, Israel could face prosecution at international tribunals. ‘If they don’t have a good faith internal investigation this thing is not going to lie down and die’, he said”.  The JPost story can be read in full here.

Ma’an News Agency is reporting that Goldstone will soon debate the report with a former Israeli envoy at a university in the U.S.

Al-Maliki has been a frequent flyer in the past ten days — he’s back in Ramallah for two days from trips between UN headquarters in New York and France, then Syria, then back to New York, then Libya — since the diplomatic fiasco at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva when Palestinian support was withdrawn for an immediate discussion of the report submitted by the Fact-Finding Mission headed by South Africa’s Justice Richard Goldstone.

The Palestinian delegation in Geneva instead asked its supporters on the UN Human Rights Council to submit a motion calling for discussion of the Goldstone report in five months’ time, that is, in March 2010, and this resolution was adopted on Friday, 2 October.

It is still not clear how or even why this was done. The only explanation at the time, given in the media, was that there had been strong pressure from the United States.

On Sunday, 4 October, after an outburst of criticism from almost all segments of the Palestinian people, Abbas announced that he had appointed a commission of inquiry to look into what happened — then he travelled to Yemen.

This Sunday night, after his return from his own travels to Europe and elsewhere, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas added, in a rather late speech to his people, that the Palestinian delegation had worried that a resolution they had been working on, to support the Goldstone report and refer it to the UN General Assembly, might not get enough votes.

In his speech, Abbas confirmed that he has now authorized the Palestinian Ambassador in Geneva, Ibrahim Khreishi, to make a 180 degree turn and ask the UN Human Rights Commission to discuss the Goldstone report now, after all.

Al-Maliki said on Monday afternoon that the efforts will be running on two parallel tracks: He said that (1) the Palestinian Ambassador started this morning efforts to gather the 16 signatures necessary (from among the Human Rights Council’s 47 members) to — as a first step — convene a special session and at the very least discuss the Goldstone report. “He’s really trying his best”, Al-Maliki said (suggesting that it is not going easily). “It’s up to the members of the Human Rights Council to decide what to do, the Council has the full authority to decide the future steps”, Al-Maliki said, “but, yes, we’d like to see the recommendations of the report accepted and approved”. And, Al-Maliki said, (2) “I will leave early tomorrow morning for New York to attend the Security Council session on the 14th of October, Wednesday, which will be an open debate on the Middle East, including the Palestinian Question … Palestine and Israel will take part … and it will be up to UN member states to mention the Goldstone report in their statements. We are asking all UN Member States to take part”.

The Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister said that “we have also been talking to the President of the UN General Assembly to see if it can also meet to discuss the Goldstone report”. He noted that there are two possibilities for that: (a) to go directly to the General Assembly’s Third Committee, where an item on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory is already on the agenda, under which the Goldstone report can be discussed. “If there is no problem”, Al-Maliki said, “then it can be passed to the UN General Assembly for discussion — but this could take time, and there could be procedural difficulties from certain countries”. Alternatively, Al-Maliki said, “we can, with the support of the non-aligned movement, the African group and others”, go directly to the re-convening of the General Assembly’s Tenth Special Session, which has been meeting on and off for many years to discuss the Question of Palestine. This Tenth Special Session is not closed, but merely suspended each time, because the Palestinian question is not yet resolved — and this makes it easier to reconvene. Without saying so explicitly, Al-Maliki seemed to be suggesting that this might offer an alternative solution, in case there are difficulties in getting 16 signatures among the 47 members of the Human Rights Council now. He said that “the UN General Assembly could meet and could ask the Human Rights Council to convene to discuss the Goldstone report in a certain period of time — we will see how things will go”.

Al-Maliki said: “We’re looking for the Goldstone report to be discussed, and to be given the space and time it needs, and to see how the UN General Assembly will discuss it. We are doing our best”.

He suggested that in the discussion, “We’ll try to look at the development of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a legal direction, and see if, after 60 years, there is a way to take an effective view at the situation and offer procedures”.

He noted that “the Goldstone report not only condemns Israel, but also Hamas, and it will be difficult for Palestinians to follow up if it condemns the Palestinian side”.

The Goldstone report, which was circulated to members of the UN Human Rights Council on 15 September, recommends that if either Israel or the Hamas authorities in Gaza have failed to launch independent investigations within six months’ time into the findings contained in the report, then the UN Security Council should consider referring the matter to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Al-Maliki said that he was summoned this morning by the Palestinian Investigative Committee on the Goldstone report, named by Abbas, “to answer questions and give my part of the story about how things evolved”. The Investigative Committee interviewed many officials today, Al-Maliki said, and “is taking its mission very seriously to understand the background, and how the decision was taken”. They will be working ’till late on Monday and in the coming days, he said.

He said that Hamas has been looking to use the Goldstone report to cover their refusal of the reconciliation efforts that Egypt has been painstakingly negotiating for months. “Last night we received the last version (of the reconciliation document) from Egypt”, Al-Maliki said. “We are ready to go to Egypt, and even to sign that document — it seems that Hamas will be the one absent … Hamas wants to exert full control in Gaza”, he added.

The Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister said that he had been present during the trilateral meeting convened by the U.S. President Barack Obama between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And, in that meeting, according to Al-Maliki, “Netanyahu raised a question about the legitmacy of the Palestinian partner, and wondered if there were a Palestinian partner”.

Al-Maliki was not upbeat about the prospects for resuming negotiations. He said that the latest effort of U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell, who was in the region this past weekend, “didn’t produce much, and there has been no change in the Israeli position”.

Israel’s YNet news reported this evening that in the opening of the winter session of the Israeli parliament (Knesset) today, Israel’s former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who now leads the opposition because her political party (Kadima) beat Netanyahu’s (Likud) by the narrowest of margins in Israeli elections last February, but she was not asked to form the new government, “accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of being responsible for the uproar created by the United Nations report into the Israeli operation in Gaza. She hinted that Israel was the one who revealed that the Palestinians had deferred a Human Rights Council vote on the report, because the prime minister ‘had to boast of his performance … You have caused Israel to be in the corner and lost more and more strongholds of support and understanding every day, but who’s counting? You have managed to beat the president of the United States, Israel’s greatest friend, or at least this is the impression you and your people tried to convey after the meeting. You have managed to humiliate the only partner for a peace settlement Israel has. In short: We have beaten America, humiliated the Palestinians, [and] isolated ourselves”. This story can be read in full here.

In response, Netanyahu said in the Knesset meeting that “We will not let Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, who sent our sons to war, reach the Hague International Criminal Court”. He reportedly said that Israel intended to block UN Human Rights Council consideration of the Goldstone report.

Meanwhile, an official in the Palestinian Ministry of Information confirmed that Palestinian Authority Economy Minister Basem Khoury, who had reportedly resigned because of the withdrawal of Palestinian support for the Human Rights Council’s consideration of the Goldstone report, had changed his mind. According to the official, Khoury sent an SMS to Prime Minister Salam Fayyad saying that he preferred to resign in the circumstances, but he was later told there would be an Investigative Committee and asked to withdraw his resignation — which he did. Despite his refusal to confirm this to media outlets including the Ma’an News Agency in Bethlehem, he reportedly did make the confirmation in a letter sent recently to the Deputy Minister of Information, the ministry official said. Khoury has recently been in Europe to work on re-convening the Human Rights Council — but it is not clear how, exactly, he was given this mandate, or by whom.

The draft resolution would have called for support of the report submitted by South Africa’s Justice Richard Goldstone, who was appointed to head the Human Rights Council’s Fact-Finding Mission on last winter’s Gaza. The resolution would also have referral the Goldstone report to the UN General Assembly for action. Instead, another resolution was adopted to postpone consideration of the report’s findings.

The news was leaked by Israeli media on Thursday evening. On Friday afternoon in Geneva it become official: the Human Rights Council members agreed to “postpone” consideration of the report’s conclusions until next March, 2010.

Even though Friday is the normal Palestinian weekend day off, there was no effort to explain to the Palestinian people why their leadership “withdraw” backing for an immediate vote by the UN Human Rights Council.

Instead, there was confusion and disarray.

On Friday morning, Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat (newly elected member of the Fatah Central Council and of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee) denied that the draft resolution would be withdrawn. There was some suggestion that the Arab and Islamic members of the Human Rights Council would go ahead and table the draft resolution, anyway. The Palestine Observer mission is not a member, after all, but only an observer. But, within minutes, “close aides” to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas contradicted Erekat, and announced that the Palestinians had indeed withdrawn support for the resolution.

The Agence France Presse (AFP) news agency confirmed that Arab and Islamic members did indeed line up in support of the alternative proposal. “Friday’s move followed a request by Pakistan, on behalf of Arab, African, Non Aligned and Muslim states that supported the report, to defer endorsement, according to documents filed with the Council”. This AFP report can be read in full here.

The only explanation came from media reports — it was a result of U.S. pressure.

Does that mean we will soon see the Quid Pro Quo — whatever it is that the Palestinians may stand to gain by this enormous and otherwise humiliating concession?

Or was it just a complete cave in?

(Or, maybe the Palestinian leadership factually read the Goldstone report, with its criticism of the human rights situation throughout the occupied Palestinian territory — and that might have made it easier for them to take this move.)

The Associated Press (AP) reported — without further details — that “Palestinian officials said the leadership in Ramallah was bitterly divided over the issue”,

AP added that Shawan Jabareen, the head of the Palestinian human rights group, Al Haq, said: “We did not expect that the Palestinian Authority itself would go against justice, and not uphold the universal application of international human rights law for its own people”. AP added that “Jabareen said human rights groups met earlier this week with the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, and were assured by him that the Palestinians would continue to seek a war crimes investigation”. This AP report can be read in full here.

But, an earlier AP report noted that “A senior U.S. official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Palestinian decision came after ‘intense diplomacy’ by Washington to convince the Palestinian leadership that going ahead with the resolution would harm the Middle East peace process. ‘The Palestinians recognized that this was not the best time to go forward with this’, the U.S. official said”. This AP report is posted here.

Netanyahu, who reportedly was considering establishing an independent investigation, returned to a harder line on Thursday, as it became clear that the pressure exerted on the Palestinian leadership had been successful. Netanyahu told the Israeli cabinet on Thursday that the draft resolution, if adopted, would deal a mortal blow to the peace process — which itself was suspended by the Palestinian leadership when Israel launched its 22-day military offensive against Gaza last winter.

The Palestinian leadership has not yet agreed to resume peace negotiations with Israel, but U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell did hold separate meetings in Washington this week with Israel and Palestinian envoys to see if there would be a way to re-start peace talks. On 22 September, after repeated Palestinian indications that they would refuse to meet with the Israeli government unless it stopped its settlement activities, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas indicated he could not refuse an invitation from U.S. President Barack Obama for a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly’s annual high-level debate which went from a bilaterial to a trilateral format, involving Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli military has dismissed many of the allegations made against its Gaza offensive, but it has reported that the military is conducting its own investigations into some particular — but so far unspecified — matters that occurred in the Gaza war.

The problem with that, according to human rights experts and to Justice Goldstone himself, is that there should be a completely independent investigation.

The only Palestinian official whose fingerprints were on this decision was the head of the Palestinian Observer Mission to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi.

Palstinian television ran an interview with Khraishi on Friday night in which he suggested that the five-month period until next March, added to the nearly three weeks since the Goldstone report was issued on 15 September, can be seen as the six-month period suggested in the Goldstone report to allow both Israel and the Hamas authorities in Gaza to carry out their own independent investigations into the report’s findings.

The New York Times reported that Khraishi said by telephone from Geneva:“We don’t want to create an obstacle for them”. (It is not clear from the text of the article what is the exact prior reference for “them” — American diplomats? Peace negotiations? Or the promised Israeli and Hamas investigations. ) This NYTimes report is published here.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, in Gaza, told Ma’an News Agency that “This move is reflective of the conspiracy between the PA in Ramallah and the Israeli occupation”.

The Jerusalem Post’s correspondent specializing in Palestinian affairs, Khaled Abu Toameh, reported in an article published Friday that “Palestinian officials, including some of Mahmoud Abbas’s top aides, did not hide their disappointment when the war ended without the removal or collapse of Hamas. As soon as the war ended, the same Palestinian Authority that had urged Israel to ‘finish off the job’, and that had provided Israel with vital information about Hamas figures and installations in the
Gaza Strip, started accusing Israel of committing ‘war crimes’. The PA even appealed to The Hague court to launch an investigation into the alleged war crimes”. Khaled Abu Toameh’s article can be read in full here.

The Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister went to the Hague during the Israeli military operation last winter, and the Palestinian Authority Justice Minister made a fmore recent ollow-up visit to the Hague, asking the International Criminal Court to investigate allegations of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.

Some Palestinians in Jerusalem on Friday were scornfully amused. Others were angry and depressed. “They are liars”, said one. “But nothing will happen, It’s not the first time they’ve done something like this”.

On Friday evening, Amnesty International issued a statement calling on “the UN Secretary-General to refer the report to the UN Security Council without delay”.

That, it can safely be predicted, will not happen.

Human Rights Watch issued a statement saying that “The decision at the UN Human Rights Council to defer a vote on the Goldstone Gaza report until March 2010 obliges the United States and other governments blocking action at the council to press Israel and Hamas to commence credible investigations … Given its responsibility for forcing a deferral of the vote and its criticism of the mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone, the United States bears a special responsibility to ensure that Israel commences investigations that are credible, impartial and meet international standards” … Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East Director of Human Rights Watch, said that “The United States won Israel a reprieve on the Goldstone report, so now it must ensure that Israel genuinely investigates allegations of abuse … If this doesn’t happen by March, then the US should endorse the Goldstone report’s call for international mechanisms of accountability.” She also said that “The failure of the US and European states to endorse the Goldstone report sent a terrible message that serious laws-of-war violations by allied states would be tolerated” .

And, a group of Palestinian human rights organizations, including Al-Haq, issued a joint statement on Friday afternoon saying that “Were the UN General Assembly to remain inactive in light of the Goldstone findings and recommendations it will be a clear message to Israel, as well as to other states, that even the most manifest and egregious violations of international law will be tolerated by the UN, suggesting therefore that international law has no meaningful role to play in the resolution of conflict … The General Assembly has a historic, moral, and legal obligation in ensuring that Israel abides by international law and a corresponding duty to safeguard Palestinian rights: it was General Assembly resolutions that recommended the partition of Mandate Palestine and admitted Israel to the UN”. The Palestinian human rights groups urged “(1) that the General Assembly recommends to member states of the UN, and to the Security Council, that the basis of any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be grounded in international law, and (2) that UN member states adopt a principled and determined stance, using the powers granted to the General Assembly under Resolution 377 A (V): ‘Uniting for Peace’ to: (1) recommend that Israel be subjected to the full weight of collective measures until its occupation of the OPT is ended and the rights of the Palestinian people are achieved; and (2) ensure that the recommendations of the Goldstone Report are followed in full in order to ensure that there is full accountability for the crimes committed in Gaza”.

However, in the UN’s customary practice, the UN General Assembly only resorts to the “Uniting for Peace” resolution after the UN Security Council has failed to act due to the negative vote (or veto) cast by any one of the five Permanent Members (who include the U.S., UK, France, Russia and China).

In Washington on Friday, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, Dr. Esther Brimmer, confirmed the U.S. diplomatic intervention in the Human Rights Council deliberations, telling journalists that “We discussed with [Human Rights] council members – and in particular, we discussed with council members and the state of Israel, as well as the Palestinian Authority – how to approach the Goldstone report. As you know, the United States has reviewed the Goldstone report carefully. We have serious concerns about the report’s unbalanced focus on Israel, its sweeping factual and legal conclusions, and many of its recommendations; however, the issues are difficult and the stakes are high, linked as they are to fundamental goals of security and peace for both Israel and the Palestinians. Israel’s right to self-defense and security must never be diminished. We must do everything in our power to end the suffering of innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians. We appreciate the decision to defer consideration of the Goldstone report, and we’ll continue to focus on working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to re-launch permanent status negotiations as soon as possible. We also encourage domestic investigations of credible allegations of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law”

In the briefing, there were these revealing exchanges with journalists:
QUESTION: On the Goldstone referral, how much pressure did the U.S. put on the Palestinians to defer this? And what do you hope to get from the deferral? Are you looking for Israel maybe to put a select number of people on trial? And it’s going to be six – a six-month delay. You expect – you really expect Hamas to do anything on their side in that six months?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Well, I’d say we appreciate the seriousness with which the parties addressed this issue, and the way they addressed it, really, during the session of the Human Rights Council. We’ve always said that the issue should be discussed in a constructive and non-divisive manner, and we’re grateful that that’s the approach that was taken by the parties to the report at this point. And the parties will now continue to look at it and prepare for the next session in March.
…
QUESTION: Quickly I got one more on Goldstone. This has just occurred to me. And that is, it’s my understanding that the United States had actually prepared an alternate draft for the Palestinians if they would withdraw their original resolution. Is that correct? Did – if it is correct, did the Israelis tell you that that also would not be acceptable to them?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: We were prepared to, in case – first, in case the resolution – the Palestinian resolution came to the floor. We also did talk closely both to the Palestinians and to the Israelis about our main concerns of the report, what we would think a positive resolution – what it might look like. But clearly, it was the Palestinian resolution that was actually brought to the floor, so that’s what actually moved ahead”.