The IDF vs. Gaza's "Great Return" March

The fourth Friday of the "Great Return" March from Gaza, April 20, whereby many thousands of Arabs are attempting to breach the border with Israel and in the process are shooting, tossing firebombs, damaging the fence itself, flying kites with molotov cocktails attached and other violent acts, has finished.  The IDF made a special effort to warn people not to approach the fence.

Yesterday's claimed injuries and fatalities were:

4 Civilians, including [1] Child, and Wounding 274, including 41 Children, 6 Women and 1 Journalist

I found there this cumulative table:

Let's retrace:


On 13 April 2018...2 Palestinian civilians were killed...393 Palestinian civilians, including 67 children, 10 women, 4 journalists and 3 paramedics were wounded

On 06 April 2018...9 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children and a journalist, were killed while 3 other civilians succumbed to their wounds they sustained on the first Friday of the Return March. Moreover, 608 others, including 80 children, 8 women, 4 journalists and 6 paramedics, sustained wounds...

and on 30 March 2018...13 Palestinian civilians, including a child, were killed on the same day, while 1067 others, including 208 children and 40 women, sustained wounds...

Obviously, either IDF snipers are improving their technical capabilities, or there is less smoke or the Gazans are getting more careful, the drop in the statistics of dead and wounded is quite impressive.

While all figures of dead and wounded must be treated with certain circumspection and even doubt, especially as regards the number of injured, and to the identity label of "journalists", it should be obvious that the "Great March" is but a great demarche by Hamas to hide their goals of Israel's extinction as a Jewish state which the world press and diplomatic echelons refuse to counter.

And it isn't working except as a propaganda tool.

For example, so tweeted Nickolay Mladenov, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process:

It is OUTRAGEOUS to shoot at children! How does the killing of a child in #Gaza today help #peace? It doesn’t! It fuels anger and breeds more killing. #Children must be protected from #violence, not exposed to it, not killed! This tragic incident must be investigated.

That is propping up propaganda*.  As a friend of mine tweeted back:

The age of criminal responsibility in Bulgaria is 14.

and I tweeted: 

I want to know too what exactly were the circumstances of what this 15 yr old was doing there? Was he playing with fire? Was he easily identifiable as 15 yrs old or perhaps his age wasn't on his forehead & he was engaged in endangering actions?

Is it not outrageous to swarm attack a border? Seek to breach it?

Until the "international community" and "human rights groups" align themselves with facts and truths, their emotions are not enough to solve problems.

_________

*

^

Big Lies Are in the Small Details

And here is the United Nation's OCHA report, "Background to the crisis", page 7:-

On 7 July 2014, the Israeli army launched a large military operation in the Gaza Strip, codenamed “Protective Edge”, with the stated objective of stopping Palestinian rocket firing at southern Israel and destroying the military infrastructure of Hamas and other armed groups. This development marked the collapse of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire understanding reached between Israel and Hamas in November 2012, which has been gradually undermined since December 2013. The latest escalation round started in early June, characterized by an intensification of Israeli airstrikes and rockets launched from Gaza at southern Israel.

Note:

A.  Operation Protective Edge "marked" the collapse of the 2012 understandings.  Not, of course, the many rockets fired off in-between or the tunnels we now know were being dug for an eventual invasion of Israel.


B.  Ah, but it was undermined.  By whom?


C.  First there was an Israeli "intensification" and then there is a "launching" of rockets from Gaza.  Isn't that sentence structure chronologically wrong?

^

The UN's Serry Calls for Respect of Religious Freedom

Can you believe this story?

Robert Serry, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, joined the procession of Jews ascending to the Temple Mount, along with other diplomats, and criticized the Israeli police actions in Jerusalem and closure of roads leading to the Holy Site.

"The procession was stopped at the fourth security checkpoint prior to the entry on to the grounds of the former First and Second Temples,” he said in a statement. “Despite earlier assurances to the Jewish community in Jerusalem, from all across Israel as well as visiting Jews from abroad, such as Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, of unhindered access on the occasion of Passover celebrations, the Israeli police refused to allow such entry claiming they had orders to that effect. A precarious standoff ensued ending in an angry crowd pushing their way through."

He called on all parties "to respect the right of religious freedom, granting access to holy sites for worshipers of all faiths and refraining from provocations not least during the religious holidays."

Of course not.


Here's the original story:-

Robert Serry, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, joined the Easter procession along with other diplomats and criticized the Israeli police actions in Jerusalem and closure of roads leading to the Church of Holy Sepulcher.

"The procession was stopped on the fourth security checkpoint prior to the entry on the church grounds,” he said in a statement. “Despite earlier assurances to the Palestinian Christian community in Jerusalem of unhindered access to the Holy Sepulcher Church on the occasion of Easter celebrations, the Israeli police refused to allow such entry claiming they had orders to that effect. A precarious standoff ensued ending in an angry crowd pushing their way through."

He called on all parties "to respect the right of religious freedom, granting access to holy sites for worshipers of all faiths and refraining from provocations not least during the religious holidays."

What was I thinking?

^

Standing Apart

Today's NYTimes' editorial, Israel Ducks on Human Rights, a day after providing a platform for an anti-Israel, factually wrong op-ed about taking Israel/is to the ICC (and which Julian Ku wrote: "If this is the Palestinian strategy to resolve their dispute with Israel, than the prospects for the settlement of this dispute are even more remote than I had previously believed."), asserts that

Israel has increasingly isolated itself from the world with its hard-line policies on West Bank settlements, the Gaza embargo and other issues. This week, it unwisely set itself further apart with a decision to withhold cooperation from a United Nations Human Rights Council review of its human rights practices.

If this paper, or any rational person, still considers the UNHRC objective, untained, impartial, considerate, reasonable, unbiased or somehow otherwise actually concerned with human rights and not an Israel-bashing forum whose members have ten times more problems with human rights than Israel while ignoring the human rights fiascos in other places much worse, not to admit all the complaints against Israel are true, I stress, then the readership of the NYT as well as its editors is to be pitied.  By the way, the UN Humand Rights Coordinator rep in Jerusalem has not yet replied or acknowledged my appeal.


The editorial even notes:

...The council...is clearly not without faults. More than half of the resolutions passed by the council since it started work in 2006 have focused on Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and Israel is the only country that is a standing item on the agenda for the council’s biannual meetings.  The council hasn’t always been an effective human rights champion. But...

Well, we don't accept "buts" anymore.

The paper contradicts itself,

...Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same scrutiny as all other countries,

but there is no "same scrutiny"!

That's the point.

The paper issue a threat or two and then adds

Any new governing coalition that emerges from Israel’s recent elections should realize that there’s a cost to standing apart.

"Standing apart" is normative Jewishness.

The anti-Semites stand us apart.

Media bias stands us apart.

Our uniqueness stands us apart.

Our history and our achievements stand us apart.

The Bible stands us apart, Numbers 23:9: 

lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not take the nations into consideration (my translation).

It would be better if the nations treated us better, understood us better, aided us more.

But at the fundamental level, we have to take that into consideration.

_____________

UPDATE

The report on "settlements" is out.

And read this.

As noted to me:

Sudan was elected as VP of a UN human rights body (ECOSOC) a couple days ago. It is simply absurd the NYT would publish that editorial.

And read Gerald Steinberg.

_______________

Caught this from David Gertsman:


Today, the Times takes another angle to use international law as a cudgel with which to beat Israel, an editorial, titled Israel Ducks on Human Rights.

Yisrael Medad and Daled Amos both identify the contradiction at the heart of the editorial.


The third paragraph reads:

In May, Israel said it planned to stop participating because the council was a “political tool” for those who wanted to “bash and demonize” Israel. The council, whose 47 members are elected by the United Nations General Assembly, is clearly not without faults. More than half of the resolutions passed by the council since it started work in 2006 have focused on Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and Israel is the only country that is a standing item on the agenda for the council’s biannual meetings.

But two paragraphs later, the editors tells that "universal standards" in human rights are important!

Human rights reviews are an important tool for judging all countries by universal standards and nudging them to make positive changes. By opting out, Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same scrutiny as all other countries, but it deprives itself of an opportunity to defend against abuse charges. The decision could also undermine the entire review process by providing an excuse for states with terrible human rights records — like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe — to withdraw as well. It certainly will make it harder for Washington to argue for reviews when an ally rejects the process.

It would be one thing for the New York Times to acknowledge that the Human Rights Council is flawed and that Israel should submit to its authority, if the flaws were not relevant to Israel's standing. But one of the flaws that the Times itself acknowledged is the council's obsession with Israel, meaning that Israel will not be judged by the "universal standards" it claims to champion.

^

Stating State Thoughts

From behind-the-scenes thinking:-

The recent vote in the United Nations General Assembly to give non-member observer state status to the Palestinian Authority contains no new legal or diplomatic information.  Even Palestinian self-determination cannot be denied.

There is already recognition of the Palestinians as a state but, on the other hand, it contradicts the tropes about Israeli oppression, occupation and apartheid. They have been functioning as a state, conducting foreign relations, making deals and acting entirely independently of Israel. This is not a Bantustan overseen by Israel. In the wake of the UN vote, Palestine opened a defense ministry and began discussing issuing passports. No people
under occupation have all these trappings of self-determination and statehood.

What is the UN bid about? Certainly not statehood. Even Israel supports that.

The issue is what are the borders of this 'state'?

The PA will not be satisfied with a declaration of statehood and self-determination but they demand that their state include what in the Oslo Process was dubbed Area C – regions that are overwhelmingly Jewish.

Roughly four percent of Palestinians live in Area C, while 100% of Jews in the West Bank live there.

So, can we forget about occupation and apartheid and define the dispute as one that is territorial?  A fight between equal neighbors, in the legal and diplomatic sense?

After all, such controversies are commonplace.  There's India, China, Russia, Japan and other nations which maintain controversies over frontiers.

But is it simply a border question?

Or is it really a dispute/conflict over whether Jews should have borders, at all or partial?   A dispute over Israel's right to exist at all and that's why every territorial concession is met with more violence in word and deed.

Hamas (a la Mashal) insists on a total negative :-

 “Palestine from the river to the sea, from the north to the south, is our land and we will never give up one inch or any part of it.”

Fatah fudges, never really comitting itself and always insisting on right of return (including into pre-67 Israel), Jerusalem, Jewish ethnic cleasing in 'Palestine'.

There are, of course, two additional problems stemming from the text of the Oslo Accords:

a) they actually want "the Civil Administration in the West Bank will be dissolved, and the Israeli military government shall be withdrawn."

and

b) the area of that state should be in accordance with: - "The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.

2. The two sides agree that West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will come under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council.

One need not be a an internation law professor to realize that it is obvious that that language permits Israel to demand a part of J&S to be retained by Israel but the Pals. will not yield on that (Arafat Camp David II).

Is there a reasoned and rational solution that will assure Israel's security?

Retention, it is.

^

Sorry, Serry

Where is the UN when you need it - in Syria, in Sri Lanka, in a dozen locations around the world?

It's busy condemning Jewish residency rights in the territory ofj the Jewish National Home as decided by its forerunner, the League of Nations, a decision Article 80 of the UN Charter upholds as still valid today*.

Read on:

UN slams plan to authorize outpost, Shiloh homes

The United Nations on Wednesday condemned Israeli plans to authorize both the Shvuet Rachel outpost and 180 already existing homes in the Shiloh settlement, located in the Binyamin region of the West Bank.

These actions are “deplorable and move us further away from the goal of a two-state solution,” said UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry.

“The Secretary-General reiterated the UN’s well known position that settlement activity is illegal, contrary to Israel’s obligations under the Road Map and will not be recognized by the international community.”

...Final approval of a zoning plan for both for the settlement and the outpost, would retroactively legalize all existing homes in Shiloh and Shvuet Rachel.

...The Defense Ministry’s settlement adviser Eitan Broshi said that the Higher Planning Council’s actions on Wednesday were a piece of that process.  He clarified that the Council’s actions on Wednesday moved the plans to the next level in the bureaucratic process, but that it could still take a number of months before the plans were finally approved.

He took issues with Peace Now’s designation of the construction as “illegal” and with the description of Shvuet Rachel as an outpost, even though it was classified as such in the 2005 report which attorney Talia Sasson presented to the government.

“Shvuet Rachel is a neighborhood of the Shiloh settlement,” he said.

The new zoning plan, he said, adjusts a technical problem for homes in Shiloh, including in the neighborhood of Shvuet Rachel, that lack all the proper paperwork.

All the homes in question, Broshi said, were constructed on state land and should be authorized.

...If these homes are authorized, it would more than double the size of both communities, Ofran said.  "The government is giving a prize to building offenders and continuing the system by which every time the settlers build without permits, the government approves the construction and allows them even more construction,” Peace Now said.

Mr. Serry, please read the material following the asterisk.

You won't be sorry.

*
As here:

The view often expressed in the UN that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal in international law ignores the fact that close settlement by Jews on West Bank land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes was to be encouraged and is legally sanctioned by the Treaty of Sevres, article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter. Denying this vested legal right by unilaterally passing a resolution that seeks to negate the exercise of that right breaches article 80 of the UN Charter and is a denial of natural justice.

Article 80:

1.Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
2.Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

And as elucidated by Eli Hertz:

The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day

The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.

This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:

ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: in the “question concerning the International States of South West Africa.”33

ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre [French: “reason for being”] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”

ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004: regarding the “legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.”35

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.

Professor Eugene Rostow concurred with the ICJ’s opinion as to the “sacredness” of trusts such as the “Mandate for Palestine”:

“‘A trust’ – as in Article 80 of the UN Charter – does not end because the trustee dies ... the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine – the area west of the Jordan – survived the British withdrawal in 1948. ... They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.”36

The British Mandate left intact the Jewish right to settle in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Explains Professor Rostow:

“This right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that unless a trusteeship agreement is agreed upon (which was not done for the Palestine Mandate), nothing in the chapter shall be construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

“The Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law. They are considered to be trusts, indeed ‘sacred trusts.’

“Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.”

When will the UN and its employees free themselves from anti-Israel and anti-Zionist prejudices as well as, it would assume, simple ignorance?

UPDATE

AP reports about Israel's preliminary approval to build new homes in the West Bank: the timing of the move may further hinder already troubled Mideast peace efforts. It casts a shadow over a trip by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington in March...Speaking to reporters, State Department spokesman Mark Toner declined to comment about the announcement, but said the U.S. policy on settlement activity is clear. "We don't believe it's in any way constructive to getting both sides back to the negotiating table. And we want to see clearly a comprehensive settlement that delineates borders and resolves many of these issues."

And they had a pictureby Abir Sultan:

^

Proser's Solidarity Speech

From Israel's UN Ambassador Ron Prosor's speech on November 29, 2011:

...Mr. President,

Even more than the words spoken in the speeches here today - or the words in the resolutions before you - it is the words not spoken that speak volumes. This Assembly has made clear that it does not stand in solidarity with many people in our region today. In this hall, I hear no solidarity with the one million Israeli men, women and children who live under the constant rain rockets, mortars and missiles from the Gaza Strip. I hear no solidarity with the 16-year old boy who was killed last April when a Hamas anti-tank missile struck his school bus. Or the thousands of other Israeli civilians who have been killed and injured. I hear no solidarity with the Israeli children who learn the alphabet at the same time that they learn the names Kassam, Grad, and Katyusha - the rockets that keep them out of school for weeks at a time.

I hear no solidarity with the Palestinians who are victims of brutal Hamas rule - with the political opponents who are tortured, the women who are subjugated, or the children who are used as suicide bombers and human shields.

And - Mr. President, today I hear no solidarity with the many people in the Middle East who are being repressed and slaughtered every single day for demanding their freedom. From Syria to Iran to Yemen, these people are no longer content with their leader's explanations that Israel is to blame for all the problems of the Middle East - a fiction that is advanced through resolutions like those before us today. Today the people of the Middle East demand real answers for their plight.

I also heard no discussion today about the incitement that continues to fill the West Bank and Gaza, where the next generation of Palestinian children is being taught that suicide bombers are heroes, that Jews have no connection to the Holy Land, and that they must seek to annihilate the State of Israel. From cradles to kindergarten classrooms; from the grounds of summer camps to the stands of football stadiums; from the names of public squares to the public pronouncements of Palestinian leaders, these messages are everywhere...

^

A "State of Palestine" is a State of Mind

No more.

Poor Mahmoud.

A picture worth a thousand words.

Check out here.


^

Elder of Ziyon's Toon: UN Welcomes "Palestine"

Here:

^

When HL Becomes HS - A Diplomatic Typo

Steven Edwards notes that a:

UN ‘typo’ turns Mahmoud Abbas into head of state

The story:

The United Nations has assigned head-of-state status to the leader of the Palestinian Authority ahead of an anticipated vote by the world body on whether to recognize Palestinian statehood, a speakers list for the world body’s annual debate shows. An “HS” designation means that Mahmoud Abbas, as the Palestinian Authority president, can speak towards the beginning of the Sept. 21-27 summit alongside other heads of state – and ahead of most heads of government, such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In previous years, Abbas has been listed as an “HL” – or “high level” delegate...the UN department responsible for issuing the list insisted it was a typo.

Edwards comments:

Yet how coincidental that the “mistake” comes in a year that the Palestinian Authority has pledged to seek official UN recognition of an independent Palestine that sits alongside an Israel with borders clipped to those that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War.

Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN first highlighted the mistake and said

“The UN has pre-judged any vote that might take place on Palestinian statehood...the entry reflects the deep-seated bias at the organization against Israel.”

I repeat the remark Yonatan Silverman made:

The only state the Palestinians

will get in September

is a state of mind.

(k/t=EK)
^

UN's Serry Not That Objective

Caught this:

The top United Nations envoy in the Middle East deplored today"s desecration of a mosque in the occupied West Bank and called for "forceful" action by the Israeli Government against such attacks.

..."The actions of Israeli extremists are highly provocative and threatening," Mr. Serry, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, said in a statement.  "I note the condemnation of this attack by the Israeli Government and stress the need for forceful action against this and other like attacks," he stated.

He has previously condemned the murder of Jews at Yitzhar in March but the killing of Ben-Yosef Livnat last month seemes to have escaped his notice, or attention.

I wonder why he is sure of the identity of the arsonists and would have thought it to be more diplomatic to be less-than-positive.

Can we not expect a bit of objectivity?

^

Even UN Agrees, Gaza NOT "Occupied"

In March, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 in response to Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s violent crackdown on anti-government rebels. The resolution authorized military action, delineated a no-fly zone across all of Libya, froze Libyan assets, and authorized the extensive use of force against Libyan troops.

...Resolution 1793 specifically rules out any “occupation” of Libyan territory...confirmation from the Council that a broad embargo, no-fly zone and months of constant aerial bombardment do not constitute an “occupation.”

...Obviously Israel’s much less comprehensive and invasive measures against Gaza do not constitute an occupation by this standard.

Source

^

And I Thought He Was Referring to the United Nations

And here I thought he was referring to the United Nations:-

UN chief: Israel's occupation is 'morally, politically unsustainable'

^

What Are American Interests?

The Foundation for Middle East Peace President Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., exhuberantly opposed to Jewish residency beyond the Green Line, and former Jerusalem Consulate-General, issued the following statement:

The U.S. veto in the United Nations Security Council on February 18 of a draft resolution (*) demanding that “Israel cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” and reaffirming that settlements are “illegal,” undermines American interests in the Middle East and prospects for a two-state peace.

...U.S. officials have said the UN should stay out of Israeli-Palestinian peace-keeping. Yet the UN has been deeply involved in this conflict from the very beginning. It recognized Israel in 1948...

Yes, America did do that.

And even more. In 1924, it aligned itself with the League of Nations decision to grant Mandate status to the country to be reconstituted as the Jewish national home.

And the territory defined at that period was what Israel looks like today with Judea and Samaria.  And despite proposals of territorial compromise, aka partition, the Arabs never accepted them while the Zionist movement actually did.

So, in recognizing Israel in 1948, America was not only doing the right thing but also recognizing the failure of any pro-Arab policy up until that point since the Arabs were obviously not interested in any solution then that entailed the establishment of Israel even before there was a "post-1967 occupation" and "settlements".  The conclusion, then, is that American interests are best served by rejecting alignment with such an Arab position.


P.S.

And even if Hillary Clinton holds this opinion:

"I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it's been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate and it is the continuing goal and highest priority of the Obama administration to keep working toward a two-state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians," Clinton told ABC''s This Week With Christiane Amanpour.

she's wrong.

Jews residing in Judea and Samaria can never be illegitimate.

___________

(*)
Full text: UN Security Council draft resolution
The following is the full text of the draft UN Security Council resolution condemning continued Israeli settlements that the Obama administration vetoed late Friday. All other member states voted in favor.

The Security Council,


Recalling its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),


Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other Arab territories occupied since 1967,


Reaffirming that all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-State solution,


Condemning the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,


Bearing in mind also the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,


Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,


Taking note of the strong support expressed by the Quartet for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for the resolution of all final status issues within one year,


Stressing the urgency of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace on the basis of the relevant resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap,


Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;


Reiterates its demand that Israel, the occupying Power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;


Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law and their previous agreements and obligations, including under the Roadmap, aimed, inter alia, at improving the situation on the ground, building confidence and creating the conditions necessary for promoting the peace process;


Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, with their negotiations on the final status issues in the Middle East peace process according to its agreed terms of reference and within the timeframe specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;


Urges in this regard the intensification of international and regional diplomatic efforts to support and invigorate the peace process towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;


Decides to remain seized of the matter.


^

Do You Think She'll Be Visiting Me?

Who?

Her: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay

Reported:-

UN Human Rights Chief to visit Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, will visit Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 6-11 February 2011.

During her visit, Pillay will meet officials at the highest level, including Israeli President Shimon Peres, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Pillay is also scheduled to meet a number of ministers on both sides, members of the Israeli Knesset and the president of the Supreme Court of Israel.

The High Commissioner will use the opportunity to meet Israeli and Palestinian human rights defenders, the Palestinian Independent Commission on Human Rights, and UN agencies working on the ground.

In Israel, Pillay will pay her respects at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and visit Sderot, the Bialik-Rogozin school and the Human Rights class at Darraj Elementary Coed School.

The High Commissioner plans include, among others, tours to parts of the West Bank, as well as Gaza, including Beit Hanoun, to speak to affected groups and get a first-hand view of the situation on the ground.

The High Commissioner will hold a press conference at 12:00 on Friday, 11 February 2011 at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem.

She is, among other things, in charge of indingenous peoples who are defined variously as by the ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) as

o Tribal peoples whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations.
o Peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
o The Convention also states that self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply

and by The Study on the discrimination against indigenous peoples (Martínez Cobo Study)'s “working definition” as:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and precolonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them.  They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems

I think those would apply to me and my family and neighbors and friends living in Judea and Samaria.

Navi, shall I put on the coffee and we'll discuss my human rights, among them, the one enshrined in the League of Nations decision, which included:

...that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country...

...recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country...

...the country [will be placed] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self -governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion...

...local autonomy.

...no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

...the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

...safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

...A special Commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine...complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.


...forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country...to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.

...no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations...

...the execution of a Law of Antiquities...

Those are good human rights. And they need protection.

Navi?


UPDATE


Navi, don't you think it's "human" and "right" to visit with and hear the other side?

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay toured the West Bank Monday and inspected the situation of Palestinians living in Area C.

Fayyad and Navi Pillay visited a house in a village near Ramallah city, which was surrounded by barbed wire away from a nearby Jewish settlement.

Pillay and Fayyad heard from the owner of the house about living conditions in Area C, which, according to the owner, under "harassments" from both soldiers and settlers.

"The house is an address for Palestinian steadfastness and insistence, despite it is isolated by settlement construction and Israeli military procedures," Fayyad said.

^

The UN is Concerned

The UN is concerned:

Evictions and house demolitions are a growing humanitarian concern for..says the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The consequences for families can be devastating: In addition to losing their homes, their main source of physical and economic security, families are faced with high legal bills, fines and charges, including the cost of their own eviction, OCHA says.

Was that about Jewish families? During the War of Independence in 1947 when Jewish families had to flee Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood that became known, incorrectly, as Sheikh Jarrah, which was actually a nearby neighborhood? During the disengagement? At satellite outposts?

Nope.


That was about "Palestinians living in East Jerusalem".



Source

(Kippah tip: SR)


^