Gaza: UN Releases Report on War "No Judgement"

UN Releases Reports on Gaza War: On Wednesday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a report reviewing Israeli and Palestinian investigations into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel's Operation Cast Lead of 2008/9.

Last November, the UN General Assembly gave Israelis and Palestinians three months to undertake "independent, credible investigations", later extending the deadline by an extra five months. With his report, Ban is sending both investigations to a committee of independent experts established by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2010.

Turkey’s Israel “Problem”: Analysing the Supposed Threat from Washington (Yenidunya)

Israelis criticised the UN's recent report for not including any input from Hamas, while the Palestinian Authority's statement criticized both Hamas and Israel. It said:

The numbers and the facts speak for themselves" and accused Israel of acting with impunity, disregarding international law, and justifying "its indiscriminate, disproportionate and collective punishment measures against the Palestinian people, as if no limitations applied to Israel.

Since Hamas took over Gaza legal institutions are being undermined and this has resulted in a high number of violations of international human rights law, negatively impacting the situation of human rights in Gaza.

Here are Ban's "Observations" in the 247-page UN report:

At the beginning of 2009, I visited both Gaza and southern Israel in order to help end the fighting and to show my respect and my concern at the death and injury of so many people during the conflict in and around Gaza. In March 2010, I again visited Gaza and Israel. I was, and remain, deeply affected by the widespread death, destruction and suffering in the Gaza Strip, as well as moved by the plight of civilians in southern Israel who have been subject to indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire.

I reiterate that international human rights and humanitarian law need to be fully respected in all situations and circumstances. Accordingly, on several occasions, I have called upon all of the parties to carry out credible, independent domestic investigations into the conduct and consequences of the Gaza conflict. I hope that such steps will be taken wherever there are credible allegations of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

It is my sincere hope that General Assembly resolution 64/254 has served to encourage investigations by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.

I recall that on 25 March 2010 the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 13/9, in which it decided, in the context of the follow-up to the report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission, to establish a committee of independent experts in international humanitarian and human rights laws to monitor and assess any domestic, legal or other proceedings undertaken by both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side, in the light of General Assembly resolution 64/254, including the independence, effectiveness and genuineness of those investigations and their conformity with international standards. Also, in resolution 13/9, the Human Rights Council requested me to transmit all the information submitted by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of General Assembly resolution 64/254 to the committee of independent experts. I am accordingly sending today a letter to the High Commissioner for Human Rights requesting her to transmit the documents received from the State of Israel and the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations to the committee of independent experts.

Human Rights Watch director Iain Levine harshly criticised Ban:

Israeli investigations still fall far short of being thorough and impartial, while Hamas appears to have done nothing at all to investigate alleged violations. We regret that the secretary-general merely passed on the reports he received from Israel and the Palestinian side instead of making the failings of these investigations clear.

Gaza Latest (11 August): Barak v. the PM, Turkey's Response to Netanyahu, Israel's "No" to the UN and More

Barak v. Netanyahu: On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met the Turkel Committee, investigating the bloodshed following the incident on 31 May. However, Netanyahu refused to give answers and suggested talking behind closed doors on several occasions. When he was asked who conducted talks with Turkish officials, whether there were alternatives to the military option or the situation could have been resolved with Cairo's assistance, and about the claims that Israel had broken international law, Netanyahu showed the committee the door.

The next day, Defense Minister Ehud Barak appeared in front of the committee. Barak's testimony not only contradicted Netanyahu but said he was taking full responsibility for Israel's deadly raid, pointing out "operational mistakes" if not "failures": "The decision making process at the political level was not the reason for the reality that emerged at the end of the operation."

Barak said that an intelligence assessment and a range of potential outcomes, including the possibility of 'extreme scenarios' were discussed in the inner Cabinet, known as the 'Forum of Seven'. In contrast, Netanyahu had said discussions before the raid focused largely on the likely impact on public relations and the chance of violent confrontation had been mentioned only in passing.

Haaretz reports that Barak --- unlike Netanyahu --- answered all the committee's questions, albeit with some political tactics of his own:

Barak bombarded the panel with names, dates and facts before launching an evasive maneuver in the form of a pompous oration on the dangers of global terror and a nuclear Iran, helpfully informing the committee that Israel was not North America, or indeed Western Europe.

Turkey's Response to Netanyahu: After Netanyahu said Turkey had ignored repeated warnings and appeals "at the highest level" to halt the flotilla, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu responded on Tuesday:

No one else can take the blame for killing civilians in international waters. Israel has killed civilians, and should take the responsibility for having done so.Turkey has no responsibility in the attack on the flotilla.

Israel's "No" to the UN: The international probe led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer might have caused a problem for Israel even if this “complementary” commission has no scope beyond "investigating" internal reports on the deadly incident on 31 May.

The problem lies in UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's answer when he had agreed to keep Israel's military forces off limits in the inquiry. He said that "there was no such agreement behind the scenes."

In response, Haaretz reports, from a government source, that Israel will not allow the UN to question Israeli soldiers. Though the commission has no right to issue sanctions but just can give suggestions, Israel's position is firm.

One can only speculate that an investigation finding an Israeli soldier's conduct "inaccurate" could lead to further political consequences in the international arena, especially when arrest warrants for former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and some senior military officials have been discussed in Europe?

Pressure to Dismantle the UNHRC's Probe?: Since the UN Human Rights Committee started its work on Tuesday, it has been reported that "key international players" are trying to persuade the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to dismantle the flotilla probe. The justification is simple: If the Council does not stop as another UN-sponsored probe is in progress, it reinforces the HRC's image as one-sided and arbitrary.

Any guess whom these "key international players" might be?

Lebanon-Israel Update: UN Support for West Jerusalem; Washington's Dilemma over Beirut

On Wednesday, a Lebanese source told the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar that the Lebanese Army was first to open fire in Tuesday's clash with Israel Defense Forces. However, the source also stated that it was their right "to defend Lebanon's sovereignty", implying that Israeli soldiers were on the Lebanese side of the borderline.

Israel, in an official letter of complaint to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, asserted that IDF soldiers did not cross the border. An official with the United Nations peacekeeping force, UNIFIL, later said that the Israeli units were in their territory, and Milos Strugar, UNIFIL's senior political advisor, added that UN deals "with complaints on provocations of Lebanese soldiers against IDF units on a daily basis".

Meanwhile, the US Government finds itself caught between its ally Israel and the need to bolster Saad Hariri's "moderate" government and a Lebanese army which is to be distinguished from Hezbollah militants.

Middle East Inside Line: Israel’s Lebanon Message, Hezbollah’s Response, Livni Challenges Netanyahu

On Tuesday,Washinigton's "we don't want to see this happen again" response was criticised by West Jerusalem as "neutral". The next day, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that the firing by Lebanese armed forces on Israeli troops was "totally unjustified and unwarranted" while calling on both sides to show restraint and urging the United Nations to oversee a calming of the crisis:

We appreciate the work of the United Nations both in the meeting today and creating the cease-fire yesterday. We're going to be working intensively to see that tensions along this border are eased.

However, the Obama Administration might have some friction from Congress over military aid to Lebanon. For 2010, the US approved $100 million in assistance to the Lebanese military, as well as $109 million in economic aid and $20 million in anti-narcotics funds. The amount of aid for 2011 is approximately the same.

Talking to The Jerusalem Post, Florida Representative Ron Klei said "the continued support of the Lebanese Army" will "come up in conversations in the Congress". Klei added:

If in fact it’s factually shown that this was a Lebanese government authorized action, I think a lot of members would be very concerned about continuing to provide military support to Lebanon. I certainly would be.

However, even Klei admitted that hostility to Lebanon might be overtaken by the need to maintain a pro-American government in Beirut: 

It doesn’t mean there’s going to be a certain reduction, because unfortunately for that region it’s the lesser of two evils. We’d much rather work with the army than Hezbollah.

Gaza Latest: Why Israel Is Welcoming the UN Enquiry

On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that Israel would accept an international probe into the raid on the Freedom Flotilla on 31 May.

The panel will begin its work on 10 August and will file its first report with the UN Security Council by the middle of September. Heading the panel will be former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on international maritime law. The vice chairman is outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who is considered pro-Israel and pro-United States. Turkey and Israel also will send representatives.

This is the first time Israel is cooperating with a UN investigation of the actions of Israel Defense Forces. Haaretz reports the mandate of the panel:

The panel's mandate is to examine the investigations that Israel and Turkey are carrying out regarding the incident of the Gaza-bound flotilla on May 31. In addition, the panel will seek to examine the facts surrounding the flotilla and recommend ways to avoid such incidents in the future.

The panel will not be authorized to call witnesses --- especially no Israeli soldiers or officers.

So it will be a very limited investigation; the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said the nternational panel will be "complementary" to national enquiries. Rice added that the US expected  "that the Panel will operate in a transparent and credible manner and that its work will be the primary method for the international community to review the incident, obviating the need for any overlapping international inquiries".

So why did Israel, contrary to initial expectations, accept a UN panel? Because, at the end of the day, it is an investigation doing no more than looking at national (i.e., Israeli) investigations which have already tried to define the findings, findings which have already tried to contain the fact that nine activists died on board the Flotilla.

Israel-Palestine: A Secret Deal to Start Direct Talks?

On Friday, talking to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked for an extension of the settlement freeze and its application in east Jerusalem. Barak responded with a statement that went far beyond the request:

We are hoping to to start direct negotiations with the Palestinians soon, in order to move forward with an agreement which will be based on two nations for two peoples. The negotiations will not be simple, and courageous decisions will be required on our part and the Palestinians. I hope everyone understands that both sides will need to make difficult decisions to establish historic peace in the region. We will need the help of the UN to go forward with the negotiations.

Middle East Inside Line: Rockets Hit Eilat, Iran Responds to “US War Plan”, US $ for Israel Missile Defence

On Saturday, Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat denied reports in the Arab media  that the Obama aministration had threatened sanctions against the PA --- perhaps even the severing of ties --- if PA leader Mahmoud Abbas did not agree to enter direct talks with Israel. Then he talked about a peace proposal, even "more generous" than the one offered to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Erekat said:

I presented Senator George Mitchell with a series of official document. We gave him maps and papers that clearly state our positions on all the final-status issues: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, water and security. Thus far we have not received any answer from the Israeli side.

(Note: Erekat has stated that the PA offered Olmert a swap that would let Israel annex 1.9% of the West Bank in exchange for return to Palestine of Israeli settlements covering 1% of the territory.)

On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had not received any Palestinian peace programme but he announced that direct negotiations with the Palestinians will begin by the middle of August.

What does all this mean? How can the Israeli Prime Minister be so confident to announce the advent of direct talks while rejecting any proposal from the Palestinians? Has Netanyahu made a concession both on the status of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, in response to a Palestinian concession on the percentage of West Bank land to be swapped?

Indeed, has Netanyahu given consent to gestures such as the transfer of some towns to the West Bank, transfer of some areas to the PA authority, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the extension of the settlement freeze in the West Bank along with a freeze in East Jerusalem?