Israel-Palestine: UN Council Endorses Goldstone Report --- What Now?

Israel-Palestine: No UN Progress on Goldstone Report on Gaza
Transcript: The Palestinian Authority Draft to UN Human Rights Council (15 October)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Friday the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the Goldstone Report, which found evidence of war crimes by both Hamas and Israel in the Gaza War. The vote was 25-6 with 16 abstentions. The US opposed the resolution while Britain and France did not vote. (The full list is at the bottom of the entry.)

The five-page resolution was remarkable for two reasons. First, it not only condemned Israeli crimes during Operation Cast Lead but also, beyond the war, denounced Israeli human rights violations in east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Second, although Goldstone Report cites both Hamas and Israel, the resolution explicitly names only Israel as a violator of international law. Goldstone criticized the UN decision to condemn only Israel, saying that the wording of the resolution was unfortunate.

Israel's Foreign Ministry rejected the resolution and called the decision "unjust":

Israel will continue to exercise its right to self-defense and to preserve the security of its citizens.

Israel believes that the decision harms efforts to protect human rights in accordance with international law and hinders efforts to promote the peace process as well as encouraging terror organizations around the world.

Israel thanks the countries that supported our position, and those who, with their vote, voiced their opposition to the unjust decision which ignores the murderous Hamas attacks against Israeli citizens... The decision ignores the fact that the Israel Defense Forces took unprecedented measures to avoid harming innocent civilians, and the fact that terror organizations used civilians as human shields in Gaza.

In contrast, Hamas welcomed the decision and said that they hoped that it would lead to "the beginning of the prosecution of the leaders of the occupation". The Palestinian Authority said that a follow-up on implementation of the recommandations in the report, "to protect the Palestinian people from Israeli aggression", was needed.

This may be the end of the line, however, for the report. The resolution asks that the Security Council forward the findings to the International Criminal Court, but the US, France, and Britain are unlikely to support the move. Indeed, with substantive action unlikely, the resolution may be an unexpected victory for Israel, with the United Nations proving its "one-sided position".

FOR the resolution: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia

AGAINST the resolution: United States, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia and Ukraine

ABSTAINING: Belgium, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Korea, Slovenia, Uruguay, Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola

Israel-Palestine: No UN Progress on Goldstone Report on Gaza

Transcript: The Palestinian Authority Draft to UN Human Rights Council (15 October)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Wednesday, the United Nations Security Council discussed the Goldstone Report. Any movement, however, was limited by the United States, Britain, and France, who all tried to return the matter of illegal military activity in Gaza to the Israelis.

Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alejandro Wolff underlined Washington's concern over "the unbalanced focus on Israel". He declared, "We take the allegations in the report seriously", but added, "Israel has the institutions and the ability to carry out serious investigations of these allegations and we encourage it to do so." British Ambassador John Sawers supported the American lead, "We urge the Israeli government to carry out full, credible and impartial investigations into the allegations," while French Ambassador Gerard Araud urged both Israel and Hamas to initiate "independent inquiries in line with international standards".

Meanwhile, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Gabriela Shalev criticized the Security Council for even considering the matter, "Instead of discussing the real and worrying questions facing the Middle East, the UN is focusing on the Goldstone report, which Israel believes legitimizes terror organizations."
She returned fire on Libya, which brought the issue to the Security Council:

An ordinary person would think that an emergency UN session would be called when Gazan and Lebanese terrorists fire missiles into Israeli territory, or because of the Iranian nuclear threat.

The pretense of urgency in this session is an attempt to "hijack" the council's agenda to promote the report, a move supported by none other than Libya - a country that has only recently celebrated the return of the Lockerbie bomber.

Iran: Tehran's Growing Confidence Against the Israeli Threat

Arms and the Middle East: Was Halted German Ship Carrying Ammunition from Iran to Syria?
The Latest from Iran (14 October): Watching Karroubi, Rafsanjani, and the Supreme Leader’s Health

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Iran Review has posted an interesting essay by Dr Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh considering "the extent of Israel’s isolation in the world". The article starts from the controversy over the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War, but it quickly moves to "Israel['s] game of posing military threats to Iran’s nuclear facilities". Golshanpazhooh notes shrewdly, "This policy has got an expiry date because the more it is repeated, the less it would be taken seriously by the audience", and then links Gaza, Palestine, and Iran in a challenging conclusion:

it is time to add another variable to Israel’s threat analyses on possibility or impossibility of an Israeli attack on Iran: Israel’s international prestige....Tel Aviv cannot possibly afford to further damage its international image in return for destruction of nuclear facilities where no international body [or] intelligence agency (even that of Israel) has been able to prove any deviation from non-peaceful military activities.

Golpanshooh is an academic, rather than Government official, but if his view is shared by Tehran's bureaucracy (and I think it is), then Iran's international strategy is now based on a stronger bargaining position.

Israel: International Prestige & Attacking Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

First: On September 29, the meeting at the United Nations Human Rights Council was quite different from the preceding days. Security was tight, entries and exits were controlled, there were limitations for representatives of nongovernmental organizations and media crews and all seats were occupied to prove that the day’s agenda was a special one. In fact, it was nothing but the report of the Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission on the war in Gaza with its author, Justice Richard Goldstone, and his three colleagues doing their best to show that it has been based on justice and objective observation.

The report proved that Israel’s violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws were much more numerous than those by Hamas. The interesting point was the anti-Israeli atmosphere which dominated the meeting. Almost all the participating countries had asked for the chairman’s permission to talk about this issue and almost all of them talked against Israel’s measures in Gaza. Few countries, mostly Western, which usually try to change the balance in such meetings in favor of Israel, issued their statements by emphasizing that Hamas should pay more attention to the findings in the report and also questioned Justice Goldstone about the process of the report writing and its credibility.

In that meeting, the extent of Israel’s isolation in the world, especially when the world public opinion was concerned, was clear to me.

Second: Announcements about Iran building a second uranium enrichment facility around Qom have rekindled debates about a possible attack on those facilities by Israel. Some analysts maintain that Israel is losing this opportunity and if it did not attack Iran as soon as possible it would regret that in the future. Others, however, maintain that construction of the new facility has proven to Israel that the success of a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is much less possible than what Israeli radical figures try to show. The second group of analysts believes that Iran has implied to Israel that it is capable of rebuilding its nuclear facilities by relying on local know-how and has made Israel more doubtful that Iran may have other nuclear facilities which are still hidden and out of the reach of the Israeli military.

Third: I read a sentence somewhere, which was very interesting to me. It noted that if Israel continued its game of posing military threats to Iran’s nuclear facilities there would be a time when Tel Aviv would have to give up its “hold me back” posture and actually attack those installations just to maintain its international prestige. In fact, this policy has got an expiry date because the more it is repeated, the less it would be taken seriously by the audience that, at times, even anticipate the attack to see what happens next.

During the past years, Israel has relentlessly told the world about Iran’s threat to the international system; has frequently charged the country with supporting Lebanese and Palestinian groups; has time and time again threatened various officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran; has been anxious about any trivial change of course in West’s policy toward Iran; has resorted to every means to prevent Iran-West détente; has increased its espionage activities in some neighboring countries of Iran; has warned Russia, India, and China about expanding relations with Iran; has blamed Iran for its failures in Palestine; and on the whole, has spared no attempt to depict Iran as a monster which world yearn to annihilate. Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks at this year’s meeting of the United Nations General Assembly proved that how deeply-rooted this policy is among Israeli officials.

Perhaps it is time to add another variable to Israel’s threat analyses on possibility or impossibility of an Israeli attack on Iran: Israel’s international prestige. This variable, in my opinion, outweighs the possible response of Iran to an Israeli attack through the Hezbollah or Hamas and even more important than the low probability that Israel could take out all Iranian nuclear facilities in a military attack. In fact, after 60 years of occupation, Israel’s behavior has shown that there is little hope for Tel Aviv to gain face with the world public opinion. It makes no difference whether a radical is in office or a reconciliatory one. Israel’s international image is tainted and perhaps beyond remedy. Some may say that Iran’s image is also not optimal, but let’s not forget which side is posing threats against which and where all the threats, machinations and intrigues come from. I also know that prestige has nothing to do with a decision on launching a major military assault just in the same way that the United States attacked Iraq in defiance of international public opinion. However, Israel is not at the same level as the United States. Prestige is of vital significance to Israel. Tel Aviv cannot possibly afford to further damage its international image in return for destruction of nuclear facilities where no international body and even intelligence agency (even that of Israel) has been able to prove any deviation from non-peaceful military activities.

Palestine: Abbas Goes on Offense, Criticises Hamas, Israel, and the US

US to Egypt: Stop the Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation Talks

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Facing increasing internal pressure and Washington's intervention in Fatah-Hamas talks, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has tried to take the political offensive. On Tuesday, he implicitly threatened that he could not control the masses if a "Third Intifada" arose in response to Israeli restrictions in East Jerusalem, announcing the re-submission of a motion to the UN condemning Israel's offensive during the Gaza War, and accused Hamas of unwillingness to reach a reconciliation agreement.

The UN Human Rights Council announced that the Goldstone Report on Gaza will be discussed on Thursday, and the UN Security Council will discuss the matter today. Ibrahim Khraishi, the Palestinian Authority's UN ambassador in Geneva, said the two-day debate would also examine recent incidents of violence in Jerusalem.

However, Abbas is trying to secure his position by moving attention to his negotiations with Hamas and Israel. He said that Hamas was using the Goldstone report as an "excuse to run away from reconciliation and, for the first time, criticized Washington clearly and harshly. According to the Associated Press, an internal Palestine Authority memo says:

All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated... Obama couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace.

Facing elections and amidst the reconciliation talks, Abbas's challenge to Washington is a risky game. At the end of the day, it is not clear how the Obama Administration will react to a man "shouldering all the troubles of the West Bank".

US to Egypt: Stop the Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation Talks

Middle East: Israel’s Troubles with a Turkish Ally
The Results of the Mitchell Israel-Palestine Trip: Nothing

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Washington has told Cairo that it does not support a reconciliation agreement which does not include the principles of the Quartet (US, UN, European Union, Russia): recognition of the State of Israel, acknowledgement of earlier agreements, and renunciation of terrorism. The Obama Administration believe the current agreement, which is supposed to be signed by both parties by October 15 , could undermine negotiations with Israel.

The Fatah Party, which leads the Palestinian Authority's West Bank Government, has already agreed with the draft of the reconciliation agreement, while Hamas has not made its position clear because of the recent PA support for deferral of the United Nations Human Rights Council vote on the Goldstone Report on Gaza.

With the pressure on Egypt to pull back from the reconcilation agreement, Fatah can concentrate on repairing its position. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that on 16 October 16 the PA will ask the Human Rights Council to forward the Goldstone report either to the UN Security Council or to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Which only leaves a question: if the Obama Administration really that a peace settlement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel can come true without an agreement between Fatah and Hamas....How?