UN-Truth

The Palestinian leadership has managed to get support from enough of the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva to agree to re-convene on Thursday afternoon to re-consider the Goldstone report, mandated by the HRC, to look into last winter’s war in Gaza.

The meeting is expected to go into Friday as well.

The Palestinian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi reportedly said on Tuesday that he succeeded in getting 18 of the 47 members to sign the request to convene the HRC in Extraordinary Session, because it is not meeting in regular session now.

[The 18 HRC members who signed the request are: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Senegal.]

Getting the meeting was the easy part. The hard part is: what’s next?

American professor Stephen Zunes, writing on the Huffington Post website, recently questioned why “On the one hand, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have insisted that the issue stay confined to the UN’s Human Rights Council. On the other hand, they have repeatedly attacked that body as being “anti-Israel.” Why, then, would they insist that the issue remain confined to an entity that they consider biased against Israel?” This comment can be read in full here.

On 1 October, it was reported that the Palestinian Ambassador in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi, had been instructed to stop his work helping draft a resolution in support of the Goldstone Report and its recommendations, and asking the UN General Assembly in New York to consider the report as well.

At the time, it was reported that 33 members of the HRC were ready to back that resolution — enough to ensure its passage. The resolution would have been presented to the HRC by members of the Islamic and African groups.

Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, who headed the HRC-mandated Fact-Finding Mission into the Gaza conflict that researched and submitted the report, was formerly a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.

On 2 October, the HRC instead agreed to a new proposal, backed (if not actually proposed) by Khraisi, to delay consideration of the Goldstone report in five months’ time — in March 2010.

This decision provoked an immediate storm of protests among Palestinians everywhere, including the Palestinian Authority’s capital city, Ramallah, in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ordered, on 4 October, the formation of an Investigative Committee to look into how the decision had been taken.

A week later, on 11 October, Abbas made his first speech to the Palestinian people about the controversy, and he announced a new decision: “I gave instructions to our envoy to hold an extraordinary meeting of the Human Rights Council to vote on the resolution, in order to punish all those who committed the most brutal crimes against our children and women in Gaza”.

In that speech, Abbas also said that “Since we felt that we would not be able to gather enough support, we asked for the postponement of the draft resolution until the upcoming session of the Human Rights Council” — that is, until March.

It had been earlier explained, though only through media reports, that the decision to ask for the postponement was taken because of strong American pressure — or “intense diplomacy”. The Obama Administration strategy is to go for a resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and put aside anything that could cause problems.

The Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said, after the report was issued, that acting in support of the Goldstone Report’s recommendations would sound the death knell of the peace process. The report says that if Israel (or Hamas) fail to conduct their own independent investigation within six months into what happened during the Gaza war last winter, then the UN Security Council should send the matter to the International Criminal Court.

The Israeli military says it is pursuing its own investigations — some of which have proceeded into criminal investigations — into a number of reports The Goldstone report stressed, however, that the investigations must be independent — and indicated that the Israeli military’s investigation does not fall into this category. Hamas said recently it is setting up some sort of investigation, as well, but the details are not yet clear.

But, the U.S. calculation seemed not to have taken into account the serious damage that would result from the postponement, which undermined the legitimacy to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah.

The reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah that Egypt has been negotiating for months has also been put into serious doubt — but that seems also to have been part of the American miscalculation — or was it, in fact, part of the calculation? Haaretz reported today that “The United States sent a message to Egypt stating it does not support the proposed reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas as it would undermine negotiations with Israel, Haaretz has learned. George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy to the Middle East, met on Saturday night in Cairo with the chief of Egyptian intelligence, Gen. Omar Suleiman, and told him the United States would not support an agreement not aligned with the principles of the Quartet … Sources told Haaretz that Mitchell made clear to the Egyptians on Saturday the United States expects any Palestinian government to follow the conditions of the Quartet, which include recognition of the State of Israel, acknowledging earlier agreements and renouncing terrorism. Mitchell also said certain aspects of current agreement were poorly timed as they would undermine relaunching negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The administration official said that the United States would continue to oppose those aspects of the agreement at any time. He noted American views on Palestinian governance have been made clear to the Egyptians several times”. This article can be read in full here.

Also today, Palestinian President Abbas said, in a speech at the Arab-American University in Jenin, in the northern West Bank, that Hamas was using the Goldstone Report (or, more precisely, though he didn’t say it, the earlier controversial Palestinian decision to defer discussion on it until March) to avoid signing on to the reconciliation agreement. Abbas also said that the Hamas rule in Gaza must come to an end by any means — except violence.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Investigative Committee into the decision to postpone the HRC’s discussion of the Goldstone report began its work on 12 October (yesterday), according to a Palestinian announcement.

*************************
Excerpts from the exchange between journalists and UN Spokesperson Michele Montas at the DPI regular noon briefing at UNHQ/NY – Monday 12 October 2009

Question: There was a report from Ramallah from the Abbas office saying he received a call from Mr. Ban Ki-moon.

Spokesperson: The Secretary-General spoke to him yesterday.

Question: Can we have readout about this?

Spokesperson: I’ll try to get readout for you.

Question: And also the Palestinian Presidential statement in Ramallah said that Mr. Ban Ki-moon expressed his support for a re-discussing of the Goldstone report in Geneva. Can you confirm that this was part of what they discussed?

Spokesperson: Yes, this is part of what they discussed.

Question: Does he support reopening the subject in Geneva?

Spokesperson: Well, he said that he would support the proposal that was made.

Question: What is his position on the report itself? What is the position of Mr Ban Ki-moon?

Spokesperson: Which report? The Goldstone report on Gaza? As I said, so far, we have always had the same position. The report was first with the Council on Human Rights and now it is [being introduced] as you know in front of the Security Council. And there is a possibility it will be re-examined by the organ that actually sponsored that report and the Secretary-General will not comment until these different bodies have taken action on that report.

Question: Clarifying when the Secretary-General said he would support the proposal that was made, you are talking, [inaudible] reopening it at the Human Rights Council.

Spokesperson: Yes.
…
Spokesperson: … just to clarify, regarding the Goldstone report, it is not in the Security Council, I made a mistake here. The Wednesday debate on the Security Council is a periodic debate on the Middle East. Of course the Goldstone report would come up, but it is not in the Security Council as a subject.

Question: Just to follow up, there were some protests from the Palestinian Authority about statements made about the Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Middle East, in which he accused the sons of President Abbas of being owners of some cell phone company there. Has this been conveyed to the Secretary-General and do you have any reaction to that?

Spokesperson: Well, this I understand has been raised, but the Secretary-General did not know about it, and just learned about it from what Mr. Abbas told him.

Question: Did Mr. Abbas protest those kinds of statements by Mr. Falk?

Spokesperson: I cannot speak on behalf of Mr. Abbas, I can tell you the issue was raised with the Secretary-General. And the Secretary-General was not aware of it and learned of it then.

Question: Any evidence to support that?

Spokesperson: I have no idea. I do not speak on behalf of Mr. Falk. He is a Special Rapporteur, not as he was identified in that news media, the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He is not. He is a Special Rapporteur.

Question: Some of the permanent members of the Security Council are split regarding the Goldstone report. Shouldn’t the Secretary-General have a clear position on this, in order to say, is it an authentic document. Some delegates have been saying it is not impartial.

Spokesperson: The report was a report that was addressed to the Human Rights Council. You know in what circumstances it was [brought] to the Security Council. The Secretary-General will not interfere with the process.

This briefing can be read in full here.

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

Filed under: Gaza, Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, International Law, International Tribunals, Israel, Palestine & Palestinians