|
Home | News | Archive| RSS
twitter | facebook
|
| Payvand Iran News ... |
|
|
01/12/09
|
|
|
|
|
UN Human Rights Council condemns Israeli military operation in Gaza
|
|
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DECIDES TO DISPATCH FACT-FINDING MISSION TO INVESTIGATE
VIOLATIONS AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY
Press Release by
UN Human Rights Council, 12 January 2009
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its ninth
Special Session on the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including the recent aggression of the occupied Gaza
Strip, and adopted a resolution in which it strongly condemned the ongoing
Israeli military operation in Gaza, which had resulted in massive violations of
human rights of the Palestinian people, and demanded the occupying power,
Israel, to immediately withdraw its military forces from Gaza. The Council also
decided to dispatch an urgent independent international fact-finding mission to
investigate all violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law by the occupying power against the Palestinian people
throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
In the resolution, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in
favour, one against and 13 abstentions, the Council called for the immediate
cessation of Israeli military attacks throughout the Palestinian Occupied
Territory and called upon the occupying power to end its occupation of all
Palestinian lands occupied since 1967, and to respect its commitment within the
peace process towards the establishment of the independent sovereign Palestinian
state with east Jerusalem as its capital. The Council also demanded that the
occupying power stop the targeting of civilians and medical facilities and staff
as well as the systematic destruction of cultural heritage. It demanded further
that the occupying power lift the siege and open all borders. It also requested
the Secretary-General of the Untied Nations to investigate the latest targeting
of UNRWA facilities in Gaza, including schools, that resulted in the killing of
tens of Palestinian civilians, including women and children.
Speaking as a concerned country, Israel said the current
resolution was not balanced and did not reflect the realities in the Gaza Strip
and did no service to the cause of peace or to the human suffering of
Palestinians in Gaza. Such a resolution would only embolden Hamas and weaken the
trust of the Israeli public in the United Nations and the Council. Less than a
month ago, the Middle East Quartet had issued a statement reaffirming the
bilateral, direct, uninterrupted, confidential and ongoing Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations. The members of the Council should echo this support. Only such
negotiations would bring to fulfilment the two-State vision. Resolutions, such
as today's one would not serve this goal.
Also speaking as a concerned country, Palestine said concern
at the events in Gaza Strip could not help but be voiced, in particular with
regards to the suffering of the Palestinian people and their terror and despair,
which could not be accepted. Palestine could not accept expressions of concern
when there were more than 4,000 wounded, and more than 800 martyrs, more than
half of which were women and children. Palestine could not accept words of
concern when talking about civilians who were falling. The barbaric acts of
aggression required a call for the establishment of a fact-finding mission to
investigate the Israeli slaughters and acts of terror.
In the context of the general debate, the Council heard from
a national human rights institution, and from a wide range of non-governmental
organizations which called for an end to hostilities and efforts to be made to
improve the humanitarian situation within Gaza. Speakers in the general debate
noted that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination had been
ignored for more than 40 years, during which the occupying power had flagrantly
ignored international law, humanitarian law, and the directives of this and
other bodies. A Commission of Inquiry should be set up to investigate
effectively and impartially the violation of human rights and humanitarian law
in the Gaza Strip. Within the mandate of this Commission should be to draw up a
list of violations of both human rights and humanitarian law; identify those
responsible for those violations and launch legal action against them; and
identify the victims and the damages incurred and ensure full reparation. Others
said the proposed draft resolution was a totally one-sided and self-defeating
statement whose predictable outcome, if adopted, would, like the previous ones
on the issue, regrettably have a negative effect on the credibility of the
Council. Israel, as a United Nations member, had the right to defend itself.
Israel allowed aid into Gaza, warned civilians before an incoming attack and
tried to save civilian lives whenever possible. On the other side Hamas was
solely targeting civilians in Israel. Hamas had refused to recognise the very
existence of Israel. The international community should use all its force to
ensure protection of civilian populations and ensure a just and long-lasting
solution. All human beings had the right to peace and security. If the Council
was to have a credible role in ensuring human rights around the world it should
act to ensure respect for the law and should counsel the General Assembly to act
in this, the most serious and longest unresolved situation of widespread human
rights abuses facing the United Nations.
Speaking this morning in the general debate was the Irish
Human Rights Commission. NGOs speaking were the Coordination Board of Jewish
Organizations, in a joint statement with B'nai B'rith International,
International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Association for World
Education, in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, World
Federation of Trade Unions, Movement against Racism and for Friendship among
Peoples, Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic
Charities, in a joint statement with Pax Romana, Europe-Third World Centre,
International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Cairo Institute
for Human Rights Studies, Federación de
Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos,
Union of Arab Jurists, in a joint statement with International Organization for
the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), Franciscans
International, Defence for Children International, World Organization against
Torture, United Nations Watch, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
European Union of Jewish Students, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (APDH),
Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", International Commission of Jurists, North-South
XXI, and Women's International Zionist Organization.
Speaking in a right of reply in the general debate was Syria.
Speaking in the context of the debate on the resolution was
Egypt, in introduction of the resolution, Israel as a concerned country,
Palestine as a concerned country, and Egypt as a general comment. Speaking in
explanations of the vote before the vote were Canada, Germany on behalf of the
European Union, and Switzerland. Speaking in explanations of the vote after the
vote were South Africa, Japan, Russian Federation and Uruguay.
The tenth regular session of the Human Rights Council will be
held from 2 to 27 March 2009.
Action on Resolution
In a resolution (L.1/Rev.2) on the grave violations of human
rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory particularly due to the recent
Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip, adopted by a roll-call
vote of 33 in favour, one against (Canada), and 13 abstentions, the Council
strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation carried out in the
Occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which
have resulted in massive violation of human rights of the Palestinian people and
systematic destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure. It calls for the
immediate cessation of Israeli military attacks throughout the Palestinian
Occupied Territory; demands the occupying power, Israel, to immediately withdraw
its military forces from the occupied Gaza Strip; calls upon the occupying power
to end its occupation to all Palestinian lands occupied since 1967, and to
respect its commitment within the peace process towards the establishment of the
independent sovereign Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital;
demands the occupying power stop the targeting of civilians and medical
facilities and staff as well as the systematic destruction of cultural heritage;
demands further the occupying power lift the siege, open all borders; requests
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the
violations of human rights of the Palestinian people by the occupying power;
requests all relevant Special Rapporteurs to urgently seek and gather
information on violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people and
submit their reports to the next Human Rights Council session; requests the
occupying power to fully cooperate with all the above-mentioned Rapporteurs;
decides to dispatch an urgent independent international fact-finding mission to
investigate all violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law by the occupying power against the Palestinian people
throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and requests the Secretary
General of the United Nations to investigate the latest targeting of UNRWA
facilities in Gaza, including schools, that resulted in the killing of tens of
Palestinian civilians including women and children.
The result of the vote was as
follows:
In favour
(33):Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil,
Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India,
Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South
Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (1):Canada.
Abstentions (13):
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands,
Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.
HISHAM BADR (Egypt),
introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Arab Group, said that during
Friday's meeting they had listened to speakers who had condemned and deplored,
or at least had been concerned over the violations of human rights, humanitarian
law and the Geneva Conventions. The situation constituted for the Council a
mandate for action. They had held consultations and hoped that this draft
resolution would pass by consensus and in Egypt's' view it should be so. Since
Friday they had been positive, in the follow-up of the Security Council, for the
situation to improve. But as Israel had rejected the Security Council's
resolution and the killings were going on, the responsibility on the Council was
heavy, the world was looking at the Council and it had to speak strongly against
the violations.
AHARON LESHNO-YAAR (Israel),
speaking as concerned Country, said that before the Council voted on the
resolution, he wanted to directly address the Palestinian delegation and other
Arab delegations and remind them of what former Secretary-General Kofi Annan had
said two years ago: "Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General
Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel's behaviour. But
one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to
the Palestinians. There have been decades of resolutions. There has been a
proliferation of special committees, sessions, etc. Has any of this had an
effect on Israel's policies, other than to strengthen the belief in Israel, and
among many of its supporters, that this great Organization is too one-sided to
be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process?"
He also wanted to ask his Palestinian colleague if he had learnt anything from
the history of 60 years of conflict. Had he drawn any conclusions or were they
all stuck in the reality of 1948? In the real world there could be no meaningful
consensus without Israel. The current resolution was not balanced and did not
reflect the realities in the Gaza Strip and did no service to the cause of peace
or to the human suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. He could not help but ask
what possible benefit it would bring, short of possibly providing a very brief
and futile sense of satisfaction. Such resolution would only embolden Hamas and
weaken the trust of the Israeli public in the United Nations and the Council.
Less than a month ago, the Middle East Quartet had issued a statement
reaffirming the bilateral, direct, uninterrupted, confidential and ongoing
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The members of the Council should echo this
support. Only such negotiations would bring to fulfilment the two-State vision.
Resolutions, such as today's one would not serve this goal.
IBRAHIM KHRAISHI (Palestine),
speaking as a concerned country, said a dialogue had been held with a view to
achieving a unanimous position. Work had been done in a positive spirit to reach
a text which could be approved by all. The open wound that the Palestinian
people had suffered had been offered at the altar of the Human Rights Council,
and it was hoped this would be remedied. Concern at the events in Gaza Strip
could not help but be voiced, in particular with regards to the suffering of the
Palestinian people and their terror and despair, which could not be accepted.
Palestine could not accept expressions of concern when there were more than
4,000 wounded, and more than 800 martyrs, more than half of which were women and
children. Palestine could not accept words of concern when talking about
civilians who were falling. Palestine was entitled to call upon the first United
Nations body on human rights to investigate the situation. The barbaric acts of
aggression required the calling for the establishment of a fact-finding mission
to investigate the Israeli slaughters and acts of terror. Palestine rejected the
law of the jungle, and if it agreed that this law ruled the world then all were
threatened today and tomorrow. Killing women, children and the defenceless could
not be accepted in the modern world. Killing a human being could never be just a
matter of viewpoint. Talk had no meaning when the principles of human rights
were being trampled underfoot. The draft resolution required support in the view
of all this. Palestine would attain its goals in the end, with an independent
state with Jerusalem as its capital and the right to return of all its people.
AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt),
in a general comment, said that they were not here to take lessons from Israel,
which was not in a position to do so. It was Israel's turn to listen to the
Council today and to learn that peace and security could not be built on the
corpses of innocent civilians. Israel had obviously not listened to the
statement. The whole word agreed to the importance of human rights and
humanitarian law as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel should take
advice from the world.
MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada),
speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked the Palestine
delegation for its consultations, but said the draft text still failed to
clearly recognize that rocket fire on Israel had led to the current crisis. It
also used unnecessary, unhelpful and inflammatory language. Canada therefore
called for a vote and would vote against the resolution.
REINHARD SCHWEPPE, (Germany),
speaking on behalf of the European Union
in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union had
expressed its utmost concern about the situation in the Gaza Strip, and deplored
the high number of civilian casualties. The European Union had welcomed the
adoption of Security Council resolution 1860, and reiterated its call for an
immediate and permanent cease-fire and a renewed peace process in conformity
with the appropriate United Nations resolutions and the Quartet's road map. All
parties should avoid acts threatening a permanent, just resolution of the
conflict. The European Union had welcomed the Special Session, and was ready to
co-sponsor it with a better title. The European Union was deeply concerned about
the human rights situation in Gaza. The Council had an opportunity to focus on
the human rights consequences of the conflict, and address the needs of all
victims. The European Union could support some of the elements in the draft
resolution before the Council; unfortunately, the resolution addressed only one
side of the conflict, and some paragraphs used legal terms without full evidence
of whether definitions were met. For these reasons, the Member States of the
European Union which were members of the Human Rights Council would abstain in
the vote.
DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland),
in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Switzerland deplored
the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and called on all parties to
respect their international obligations under humanitarian law and human rights.
Switzerland supported the holding of this Special Session and had made many
proposals to improve the text but deeply regretted that no efforts had been made
to arrive at a text that could be adopted by consensus. Light had to be shed on
all violations that had been committed in Gaza and it was thus important that a
reporting mechanism and fact finding mission be created. For these reasons,
Switzerland would abstain in the vote.
LUVUYO LONSDALE NDIMENI, (South Africa),
in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the Human Rights Council's
mandate in dealing with the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory in particular the Gaza Strip should be reaffirmed. South
Africa understood fully the need for consensus on the issue, and remembered that
other resolutions had not been adopted by consensus. The previous resolutions on
the subject of Beit Hanoun had not yet been implemented. The current grave
situation required steps to be taken. The Government of South Africa had
conveyed its opinion on the subject - the practical enjoyment of all human
rights by the Palestinian people including the right to self-determination
should be ensured. The need for a comprehensive and balanced text should not be
ignored - it would only be meaningful if the plight of the Palestinian people
was reflected. South Africa hoped the current resolution would be fully
implemented.
AKIO ISOMATA (Japan),
in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Japan had abstained from
the vote. Japan was deeply concerned over the situation and strongly urged both
parties to halt the use of force and to make their outmost efforts toward the
peace process. On the resolution, they appreciated the amendments made but it
was regrettable that the resolution had still not been balanced enough. Further
efforts should have been made, so as to allow the Council to speak in one voice.
VALERY LOSHCHININ, (Russian Federation),
in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that from the very outset it
had sought to ensure the text of the resolution was balanced, and a number of
suggestions had been taken into account by the co-sponsors. Unfortunately, not
all of the proposals were aimed at drafting a more balanced document. At the
same time, in view of the acute situation which had arisen as a result of the
military operations in the Gaza Strip, Russia had supported the draft
resolution.
ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ, (Uruguay),
speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Uruguay had voted in
favour of the resolution for reasons that were already explained in the
statement of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries on Friday.
Nonetheless, Uruguay was of the view that no viable solution could be achieved
if there was no cessation of all acts of mutual aggression so as to allow for
the stones to be laid for negotiations aimed at achieving peace and encouraging
the parties to arrive at a mutual commitment. A negotiating mechanism that
respected international law and human rights needed to be installed in strict
respect of humanitarian law.
General Debate
KATHARINA ROSE, of the Irish Human Rights
Commission, said it was a very difficult time and
there was grave concern at the current humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.
All parties involved should respect human rights and take immediate action to
resolve the current crisis. There should be an end to violence on both sides.
The international community should urgently increase its ability to effectively
monitor the human rights situation in Palestine - in particular, the National
Human Rights Institution of Palestine should be strengthened and additional
resources provided so that it could effectively fulfil its mandate and monitor
and protect human rights at the national level.
KLAUS NETTER, of the Coordinating Board of Jewish
Organizations, said that this was the fifth
Special Session dealing with the Israel-Arab conflict and it would end with a
one-sided condemnation. The media would surely rejoice over this empty political
victory. But the resolution would not have any effect on relieving the victims
on the ground. He underscored the proportionally of the Council, which was
ignoring the basic reason of the conflict, which was the firing of Hamas rockets
into Israel. Israel, as a United Nations member, had the right to defend itself.
Israel allowed aid into Gaza, warned civilians before an incoming attack and
tried to save civilian lives whenever possible. On the other side Hamas was
solely targeting civilians in Israel. Hamas had refused to recognise the very
existence of Israel. The Council had to condemn the actions by Hamas and
recognise the threat it posed to the peace process.
DANIEL LACK, of the International Association of
Jewish Lawyers, said certain members of the
international community had chosen to ignore blatant violations of terrorist
groups, while purporting to criticise Israel in the exercise of its undoubted
United Nations Charter and other rights, without any basis in international law.
The terrorist actions of Hamas fully corresponded to the generally accepted
definition of terrorism. Alleged criticism of Israel's control of Gaza's
airspace and waters was baseless since the terrorist occupation of Gaza conveyed
no rights analogous to a sovereign state. There was no reason to consider the
Gaza Strip as occupied territory. The draft resolution was a totally one-sided
and self-defeating statement whose predictable outcome, if adopted, would, like
the previous ones on the issue, regrettably have a negative effect on the
credibility of the Council.
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education,
in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that the
great tragedy now taking place in Gaza and over the rocketed area in Southern
Israel was being debated in the first week of 2009, which was the International
Year of Reconciliation. A year ago the Special Rapporteur John Dugard, in his
final report had strongly advised the United Nations to withdraw from the
Quartet and had rejected its roadmap. He had predicted that there was no
immediate prospect of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and that was still
the situation. Gaza, under the leadership of Hamas was a classic example of a
divided society, the division between Gaza and the West Bank, Gaza and Israel,
Gaza and Egypt and Gaza and the wider world. Gaza's future status was a key
issue of any negotiations. He proposed to go back to Churchill's 1946 idea of a
united states of Abraham in the Middle East. The Hamas Charter made any
discussions impossible.
OSIRIS OVIEDO, of the World Federation of Trade
Unions, said the situation was grave in Palestine,
and the efforts of the body in protecting human rights was important. The World
Federation condemned the massacre being perpetrated by the Israeli military.
Israeli military action had destroyed homes, mosques, and infrastructure in
general, and was blocking assistance to the wounded, further to the unjust
blockade. It was a difficult time of pain and mourning. The right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination had been ignored for more than 40
years, during which the occupying power had flagrantly ignored international
law, humanitarian law, and the directives of this and other bodies. The
credibility of international institutions was being tested, as was the
commitment to human rights. The international community could not remain
spectators to genocide, and should step up its actions to put an end to this
holocaust. A resolution should contain proposals for concrete action.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of the Movement Against
Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples, said that
the blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip was behind massive human rights
violations of human rights. The latest military action had brought many war
crimes and their perpetrators had to be brought to justice. Last Friday, the
Movement and 31 other associations had filed a complaint to the International
Court of Justice and called for the State of France to do the same. The Movement
would also denounce any acts of anti-Semitism in France. Both border countries
of Gaza had to open their borders for any person seeking refuge. The Movement
also called for the lifting of the Gaza blockade and for the implementation of
all relevant Security Council resolutions.
FLORIANA POLITO, of Caritas Internationalis
(International Confederation of Catholic Charities,
in a joint statement with Pax Romana, said the huge number of civilian deaths
and casualties in Gaza had led to tragic suffering for the Palestinian
population. Many more civilians would be killed if hostilities continued.
Medical relief operations had been seriously affected since the beginning of the
bombing in Gaza. Any movement inside Gaza had become dangerous. The Israeli
military operation came on top of the serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with
a basic lack of food, water and energy supplies. War could not be justified
either by Israel or by Hamas. A permanent ceasefire was necessary to bring
supplies and humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Council should urge all parties
involved to commit themselves to an immediate permanent ceasefire, and to
enforce international humanitarian and international human rights law. Israel
should bring an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people and
to the excessive use of force. The international community should use all its
force to ensure protection of civilian populations and a just and long-lasting
solution.
CELINE BRUN, of Europe-Third World Center,
said that for the 800 Palestinian deaths and many injured and the many human
rights violations, obtaining justice has become a vital importance. Serious
human rights violations had been perpetrated by the Israeli forces. The military
operation suggested a deliberate wish to systematically attack civilians, all
tantamount to violations of international law. State Parties to the Fourth
Geneva Convention had to apply international humanitarian law; however Israel
was violating it on a massive scale. International peace and security had to be
re-established in the region.
JAN LONN, of the International Youth and Student
Movement for the United Nations, said the ongoing
barbarism had shocked the peoples of the world who were daily demonstrating
their outrage at this latest Israeli adventure, but they were also shocked that
the human rights bodies were not making more effective efforts to take the
necessary strong and united actions to immediately and without delay stop these
crimes against humanity. This Special Session was an opportunity to speak out
against the horrors taking place in Gaza. The Council should end impunity, and
send a clear message as to the consequences of such flagrant crimes and the
assault on the entire fabric of international law. The Council should establish
a Commission of Inquiry into the war crimes and human rights violations
perpetrated by Israel, in particular during the ongoing aggression against Gaza,
and on the basis of these make recommendations to the General Assembly on
holding the leaders of the State of Israel responsible for their actions.
JEREMIE SMITH, of the Cairo Institute for Human
Rights, welcomed the holding of the Special
Session and expressed deep concern over the disproportionate use of force in the
Gaza Strip, which had caused many deaths among civilians, humanitarian aid
workers and United Nations staff. In the current situation, there was an
unprecedented level of disregard of international human rights and humanitarian
law in recent time. The Council should demand an immediate ceasefire and call
for effective measures to be undertaken for humanitarian aid to be allowed to
enter the Gaza Strip. Individuals responsible for war crimes should be brought
to justice and the Council should forward any information it had in this regard
to the International Court of Justice.
DAVID FERNANDEZ PUYANA, of Federación de
Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos,
said there had been an escalation of violence, with deaths of women and children
due to the armed actions of Israel. This was a serious breach of the Fourth
Geneva Convention on the protection of unarmed civilians. The adoption of
resolution 1860 by the Security Council was welcomed. The Human Rights Council
should call on the Security Council to apply the General Assembly resolution
which was adopted in October. States should call on Israel to live up to its
commitments and obligations in international and humanitarian law. A Commission
of Inquiry should be set up to investigate effectively and impartially the
violation of human rights and humanitarian law in the Gaza Strip. The Council
should adopt a consensus text encouraging the parties to stop their actions and
respect the civilians in the Gaza Strip.
ELIAS KHOURI, of Union of Arab Jurists,
in a joint statement with International Organization for the Elimination of all
Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), said that as they were sitting here in
the room and condemning the actions of Israel, the war machine of Israel
continued to kill innocent civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure in
Gaza. What was taking place in Gaza was a violation of international human
rights law and humanitarian law. Basic war principles, such as to make a
difference between a civilian and military target, were not respected by Israel.
The current attack was not due to the firing of Hamas rockets, as Israel had
already started occupying and attacking Gaza well before Hamas had been in
power. Israel had refused to implement several international resolutions. These
criminal acts were supported by several western powers.
DENISE BOYLE, of Franciscans International,
said the escalation of violence had completely disregarded the most basic
principles of international humanitarian law, leading to the present
humanitarian tragedy. A cease-fire was absolutely necessary in order to prevent
the further targeting of the civilian population. The military offensive added
further suffering to the civilian population in Gaza enduring the blockade. The
Human Rights Council should condemn the targeting of civilians by both sides.
The Council should also urge Israel and Hamas leaders to durably cease all
hostilities and fully respect the principles of international humanitarian law.
Israel should allow full access to Gaza to humanitarian agencies and lift the
blockade, as well as cease all measures that amounted to collective punishment.
The international community should not think it would have met its
responsibilities by brokering only a localised ceasefire - rather, its greater
responsibility was to bring about a genuine peace treaty between Israel and
Palestine, within a regional framework, which alone could make such a peace
possible and secure.
JULIA D'ALOISIO, of Defence for Children
International, illustrated the devastating impact
of the current conflict in Gaza on children. According to Defense for Children
Palestine, at least 158 children had been killed in the current operation and
the United Nations reported over 250 child fatalities. Israel had claimed that
this latest military operation aimed to stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel,
which was undoubtedly illegal and should be condemned. Nevertheless, Israel's
offensive was not only grossly disproportionate but clearly failed to
distinguish between military and civilian targets. They could not see how this
slaughter could make Israel safer. Israel had wilfully created a humanitarian
disaster which aid agencies could no longer contain.
ROLIN WAVRE, of World Organization Against Torture,
said reports had denounced the targeting of civilians and civilian objects
during military operations by Israeli Defense Forces. The Gaza Strip had
remained under blockade since 2007, having only a limited access to humanitarian
supplies. The death toll would sharply increase with the lack of medical
supplies, food and basic commodities such as fuel and electric power. The
Israeli authorities should immediately cease the military operations and the
United Nations should establish a United Nations-led mission whose mandate
should be: to establish the facts; to draw up a list of violations of both human
rights and humanitarian law; to identify those responsible for those violations
and launch legal action against them; and to identify the victims and the
damages incurred and ensure full reparation.
HILLEL NEUER of United Nations Watch,
said that much of this session had revolved around a fundamental misconception
which was that in the current war between Hamas and Israel, culpability was to
be determined by simply counting the amount of deaths and casualties on each
side, comparing and then reaching a verdict. This sought to dismiss the quantity
and quality of Israeli suffering under Hamas terror. There was no rule in
international law, state practice or in common sense to support this
proposition. The proportionality obligation under international law was
completely different: it required that a military operation be directed at a
legitimate military objective and be proportionate in the sense that expected
collateral damage to civilians not be excessive in relation to the military
advantage anticipated. This was what Hamas violated everyday.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International,
said despite the Security Council's near unanimous adoption of resolution 18/60,
a humanitarian catastrophe was continuing to unfold in Gaza. As the United
Nations body with primary responsibility for the protection of human rights, the
Council should demand that all parties to the current conflict immediately end
all unlawful attacks against civilians and other serious violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law, and demand measures to relieve
civilians in Gaza and end the indiscriminate rocket attacks that endangered
civilians in Southern Israel. The Council should call on Israel to allow human
rights and humanitarian workers and journalists immediate unfettered access to
Gaza. There should be full accountability for war crimes and crimes against
humanity. The Council should also insist on the dispatch to the area without
delay of international monitors. The grave transgressions of human rights and
international humanitarian law which were so conspicuous a feature of the
conflict should cease.
JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch,
said that they were gravely concerned that the already dire humanitarian
situation in Gaza had reached catastrophic proportions during the ongoing armed
conflict. While Israel's refusal to allow independent monitors into Gaza had
limited their ability to investigate individual incidents, they were deeply
concerned about attacks that might have caused indiscriminate or
disproportionate loss of civilian life, in violation of the law of war. Hamas
had also violated the laws of war with deliberate or indiscriminate attacks
using rockets against population centres in Israel. Also, the closure of Gaza
constituted an unlawful collective punishment of the civilian populations. Both
sides had to take all necessary measures to protect civilian populations. Human
Rights Watch called on the Council to call upon Israel to abide by the laws of
war.
LIRAZ MADMONY, of the European Union of Jewish
Students, said all human beings had the right to
peace and security. The United Nations was ignoring the rights of Israelis,
mainly the right to life. Everyone suffered in the current situation. Israelis
dreamed of peace, which would come when the rulers of Gaza chose humanity over
hate. Israel would not grant victory to the terrorists, but would remain strong.
Who was protecting Israel's human rights?
BRENDA VUKOVIC, of the Permanent Assembly for Human
Rights, condemned the severe acts against the
Palestinian civilians in Gaza, which reflected a clear ignorance of human rights
and were crimes against peace. The current situation was a threat to peace. The
international community had a role to play to put an end to the current human
rights violations. The Permanent Assembly also called on the United Nations to
step up its efforts to put an end to the current humanitarian crisis.
LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru",
said today the Israeli occupying power, in its implacable intransigence aimed at
crushing the resistance of the Palestinian people, was perpetrating a further
atrocity in the Gaza Strip. The Zionist occupying army had stepped up its
attacks on civilians, including in schools, leading to the deaths of children.
The Israeli State justified its barbaric aggression by claiming to be defending
itself against attacks. The people of Gaza, martyred, were condemned to a
ghetto, with a total blockade forbidding them to leave the Strip. Israel
violated the most basic norms and principles of contemporary international law.
The war of aggression sought to change the situation in Gaza, overcome
Palestine, and eradicate the democratically elected Government of the Gaza
Strip. Israel was continuing to enjoy impunity, ignoring and flouting the
resolutions of the Security Council, including the latest one, and the
resolutions of the Human Rights Council. The international community should no
longer allow an occupying power to strive to exterminate a population for the
single crime of demanding its right to self-determination and to live in peace.
LUKAS MACHON, of the International Commission of
Jurists, said that Palestinian civilians continued
to pay the heaviest toll in the latest Israeli operation, with serious
violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law. Since this
military operation had started, hundreds of Palestinian civilians had been
killed. The Israeli military operation and the Hamas rocket attacks continued to
inflict suffering on both sides, in violation of Security Council resolution
1860. Israel's attacks had been indiscriminate or disproportionate and it had
failed in its legal obligation to spare civilians from attacks. The conclusion
of an immediate and durable cease-fire was essential and Israel had to end the
siege of Gaza. The International Commission of Jurists called on the Council to
conduct a fact-finding investigation on violations of international human rights
and humanitarian law in Gaza and to condemn incidents such as the firing of
rockets that might fuel the conflict.
SHABARINATH NAIR, of North South XXI,
said there was outrage at the unjustifiable and inhumanely intense violence
perpetrated by the Government of Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. The
current onslaught could leave no doubt that there was very significant evidence
that the crime of genocide was being committed by Israel against the Palestinian
people. The genocide should be stopped, and those directly and indirectly
responsible should be punished. While the ceasefire was the responsibility of
the Security Council, the Council and the General Assembly had the duty to
investigate the grave breaches of individual's rights in Gaza, and urge
effective action to bring those responsible to justice. If the Council was to
have a credible role in ensuring human rights around the world it should act to
ensure respect for the law and should counsel the General Assembly to act in
this, the most serious and longest unresolved situation of widespread human
rights abuses facing the United Nations.
MARISSA CRAMER, of the Women's International
Zionist Organization, said that one had to wonder
where the Council was when almost 1 million citizens in southern Israel had been
bombed with 500 rockets during the preceding week of the current attack on Gaza.
Were the lives of Israeli children worth less to the Council than those of
Palestinians? Before voting today, some of the delegates should come to visit
the daycares centre in Sderot. What would one do if one's family was under fire
for eight straight years? On the other hand, civil society in Gaza, led by
Hamas, was calling upon children and women to form a human shield in order to
protect buildings from anticipated Israeli air strikes. This calculated use of
civilians as human shields was intended to decrease the vulnerability of Hamas.
This technique had brought about Special Sessions like this one today.
Right of Reply
FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI, (Syria),
speaking in a right of reply, said the representative of Israel had last Friday
mentioned Syria, and the delegation of Israel, which was exercising state
terrorism in an organised fashion, in no way had the right to mention anyone or
to quote anybody's name. Israel had carried out attacks indiscriminately,
without differentiating between children, women and the elderly, had targeted
international organizations and ambulances, and when civilians sought refuge in
United Nations schools, Israel had targeted those schools and the women and
children therein. Israel was reiterating here its war crimes and crimes against
humanity. This war was a war against children - they were 40 per cent of the
total victims of this war. The world was now accustomed to hearing the lies
voiced by Israel to avoid sanctions whenever it committed such massacres. These
accusations voiced by Israel lacked credibility.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official
record
... Payvand News - 01/12/09 ... --
|
© Copyright 2009 NetNative
(All Rights Reserved) |
|
Join Payvand's Facebook Page
|
