UNGA action must now replace divisive Russia-Ukraine talkfest

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has given credence to the oft-used statement that “Truth is always the first casualty of war”.

Addressing the media after the UN General Assembly (UNGA) had resolved by 141 votes to 5 to demand that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally” withdraw its military forces from Ukraine - Guterres stated:

“The General Assembly has spoken.  

As Secretary-General, it is my duty to stand by this resolution and be guided by its call.

The message of the General Assembly is loud and clear:

End hostilities in Ukraine — now.

Silence the guns — now.

Open the door to dialogue and diplomacy — now.

The territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine must be respected in line with the UN Charter.

We don’t have a moment to lose.  

The brutal effects of the conflict are plain to see.

But as bad as the situation is for the people in Ukraine right now, it threatens to get much, much worse.

The ticking clock is a time bomb ... 

... Today’s resolution reflects a central truth.  

The world wants an end to the tremendous human suffering in Ukraine.  

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson supported Guterres with this equally-misleading fatuous statement:

“Rarely has the contrast between right and wrong been so stark, 141 countries voted to condemn Putin.”

The General Assembly’s message was not that loud and clear - or as stark – as a closer analysis of the recorded votes reveals (See diagram): 

Notably:

• The world’s two most populated countries – China and India – representing 36.1% of the world’s population - abstained from voting. 
• 12 countries failed to vote.
• 35 countries abstained from voting.
• Those 47 countries abstaining or not voting represent 54.72% of the world’s population and 24.35% of the 193 member states in the United Nations.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. - Linda Thomas-Greenfield - said before the vote:

“We believe this is a simple vote, Vote yes if you believe U.N. member states, including your own, have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. Vote yes if you believe Russia should be held to account for his [Putin’s] actions. Vote yes if you believe in upholding the U.N. Charter and everything this institution stands for.”

Thomas-Greenfield’s message obviously failed to resonate with those 47 abstaining or non-voting countries. 

Despite this embarrassingly-divisive vote – the UNGA can still act to protect and uphold the principles of the UN Charter by utilising that 141-5 majority to humiliate and isolate Russia whilst simultaneously supporting Ukraine in its struggle to regain its territorial sovereignty and independence.

That majority vote – if repeated – could see a range of UNGA bodies immediately established and funded by all 193 member States - including:

• A Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Ukrainian People:

To institute a programme that will enable the Ukrainian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty without external interference; to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced.

• A United Nations Ukrainian Works and Relief Agency: To carry out direct relief and works programmes solely for Ukrainian refugees.
• A Special Rapporteur to assess the human rights situation in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories, report publicly and work with governments and civil society to foster international cooperation.
• A Special Committee to investigate Russian practices affecting the human rights of the Ukrainian People and other residents of the Occupied Ukrainian Territories
• A United Nations Special Coordinator for the Russia-Ukraine conflict to report quarterly to the Secretary General, the General Assembly and the Security Council

The UN General Assembly and its Secretary-General now need to stop talking and start acting – or see their relevance and credibility sink from sight.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

---

UN should use Israel-bashing model to oust Russia from Ukraine

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly needs to stop its pious bleating and move to immediately set up a network of Ukrainian-dedicated agencies to try and force Russia to end its invasion and occupation of Ukraine – adopting the same model it has established in trying to force Israel’s withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) over the last 50 years.

The General Assembly has failed in Israel’s case – because:

• Sovereignty remains unallocated and still in dispute between Jews and Arabs after 100 years
• Israel has the legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home there pursuant to articles 6 and 25 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter
• Any Israeli withdrawal can only occur after secure and recognised boundaries are fixed pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 242.

However Russia’s invasion of the sovereign territory of another UN member state challenges the UN’s continued existence – as UN Secretary-General Assembly Antonio Guterres has pointed out: 

“It is wrong. It is against the Charter. It is unacceptable. But it is not irreversible”

Reversing Russia’s flagrant violation of the UN Charter justifies the General Assembly adopting its Israel-bashing model to establish the following Ukrainian-dedicated agencies to humiliate and bash Russia into withdrawing from Ukraine: 

• Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Ukrainian People (CEIRUP): To institute a programme that will enable the Ukrainian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty without external interference; to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. 

• Department for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs’ (DPPA) Division for Ukrainian Rights:To serve as the Secretariat of CEIRUP and provide the following core functions: 

1. Organising the meetings of CEIRUP and its Bureau at UN Headquarters;
2. Monitoring political and other relevant developments;
3. Organising programmes of international meetings, conferences and CEIRUP delegation visits;
4. Implementing a publications programme;
5. Developing and maintaining the United Nations Information System on the Question of Ukraine (UNISUKR) and managing CEIRUP’s outreach efforts including via social media;
6. Cooperating with civil society organizations active on the Russia-Ukraine issue;
7. Organising an annual observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Ukrainian People;

• United Nations Ukrainian Works and Relief Agency:  To carry out direct relief and works programmes solely for Ukrainian refugees. 

• Special Rapporteur: To assess the human rights situation in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories, report publicly about it, and work with governments, civil society and others to foster international cooperation.

• Special Committee: To investigate Russian practices affecting the human rights of the Ukrainian People and other residents of the Occupied Ukrainian Territories

• United Nations Special Coordinator for the Russia-Ukraine conflict: The Secretary-General’s Personal Representative and the focal point on the ground for UN support in all political and diplomatic efforts related to any peace process, responsible also for coordinating the activities of all UN Russia-Ukraine agencies, funds and programmes on humanitarian and development assistance to be set up to assist the Ukrainian People

These agencies will neutralise any Russian veto in the Security Council and reinforce sanctions and other decisions made by individual UN Member States to force Russia out of Ukraine.

Simultaneously the UN Human Rights Council should establish an ongoing independent, international commission of inquiry - appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council - to investigate in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law by Russia leading up to and since 22 February 2022.

The UN will cease to have any credibility or relevance if the General Assembly fails to implement these measures. 

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

PLO blocks West Bank Arabs leaving for a better life

[Published 23 July 2019]

Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) — Saeb Erekat — has told a political symposium in Jericho that West Bank Arabs would not be allowed to voluntarily leave — virtually holding them captives against their will.

Erekat stated:

“We will not allow resettlement or formation of refugee committees for that aim, while holding on to the settlement of their cause in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions.”

Michael Lynk - the United Nations Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967” had issued a statement on June 28 endorsing the right to freedom of movement — enshrined in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Erekat’s outrageous threat was not responding to Lynk’s comments — but to leaked reports claiming the United States might be seeking the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in at least five Arab neighboring countries.

If confirmed, West Bank Arabs could well be prepared to voluntarily leave the West Bank in large numbers — especially if offered the opportunity to legally enter other Arab countries and receive financial assistance for rehousing and resettlement there.

President Trump has a massive US$28.7 billion possibly available to aid West Bank Arabs who want to emigrate, being the money he wanted to plough into revitalising the West Bank and Gaza — which both the PLO and Hamas unbelievably rejected.

Given the state of relationships between Israel, the PLO and Hamas — spending that money earmarked for projects within the West Bank and Gaza was a highly questionable exercise that could have seen the destruction of such projects in future conflicts between these three long-time enemies.

Helping those desperate to emigrate who have suffered the perverse decisions of the PLO during the last 25 years is a much more targeted use of the money — guaranteeing a far better outcome for West Bank Arabs and their families.

The 2019 Human Rights Watch Report evidences the toxic nature of the West Bank:

1. The PLO arrested activists who criticized their leaders, security forces, or policies, and mistreated and tortured some in their custody.

2. The Independent Commission for Human Rights in Palestine (ICHR), a statutory commission charged with monitoring human rights compliance by the Palestinian authorities, received 205 complaints of torture and ill-treatment by West Bank security forces as of October 31, 2018.

3. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israeli security forces fatally shot 27 Palestinians and wounded at least 5,444,

4. Attacks by Israeli settlers injured 61 Palestinians and damaged property in 147 incidents.

5. Palestinians killed 10 Israelis, including six civilians, and wounded at least 58 in the same period in the West Bank.

Since the 1993 Oslo Accords — 95% of the West Bank Arab population has been under total PLO administrative control.

Real growth declined to around 2 percent in 2018 — lower than its average in previous years. The 2018 unemployment rate was 17.6 percent. Youth unemployment between ages 15-24 is 29.8 percent.

The World Bank has concluded that lack of progress towards peace and reconciliation creates an unsustainable economic situation. The PLO has refused to negotiate with Israel since April 2014 and has failed to call elections since 2007.

The only media outlet to report Erekat’s incendiary statement was the Chinese news agency Xinhua.

The remaining media’s failure to report — and the UN Special Rapporteur’s failure to condemn — Erekat’s controversial announcement — are despicable.

Hopefully President Trump will pressure the PLO to reverse its position and offer a window of opportunity for those to leave who wish to do so.

Offering West Bank Arabs a lifeline to a better future elsewhere is long overdue.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones” - one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Jordan/West Bank Bi-National State Under Discussion

[Published 12 July 2013]


Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been discussing the creation of a bi-national State in the West Bank and Jordan according to Professor Richard Falk - United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967.

Professor Falk is revered by the Palestinians whilst simultaneously being targeted by many others - including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay - for his controversial views on a range of matters including his suggestion that the Boston marathon bombing was a justifiable response to America’s interventionist US foreign policy and his posting of an anti-Semitic cartoon on his web site.

Writing in his blog “Citizen Pilgrimage” - Professor Falk disclosed discussions were taking place on a bi-national State during an exchange he and I were having - after he had written:

“I do agree with you about the ‘two state’ solution being a dead letter, and rather bad faith on all sides to pretend otherwise.

The question seems to me to be “What Next?” I think the Jordanian option is one answer, but not one I endorse. There is a need for this discussion, I agree to this extent.”

I then sent Professor Falk a recent article written by me arguing for the creation of a bi-national state in Jordan and the West Bank to embrace the aspirations of the Arab populations of both territories.

Professor Falk’s response on 8 July was unexpected and very encouraging:

“I have read your article with care, and it does provide a clear alternative to the two-state solution. It is also an approach that I know from my diplomatic contacts is being encouraged by Israeli negotiators in private meetings with the Palestinian Authority, and toward which the PA has not expressed outright rejection, but apparently a willingness to consider.”

Whilst expressing that he had several problems with this solution - which he enumerated - Professor Falk continued:

“Given the paucity of decent alternatives, if the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people genuinely accepted such a solution without it being imposed, it might be better than nothing, and the best among bad options.”

I addressed Professor Falk’s concerns to which he made the following response:

“Without attempting to respond point by point because there are some underlying gaps separating our positions that cannot be bridged by reasoning or compromise, I will merely express my reservations about advocating a resumption of negotiations”

Two of Professor Falk’s reservations were:

1. “I do not discern any support among Palestinians for the Jordan bi-national option that you are proposing"

This was a surprising statement in view of the fact that he had earlier indicated that Palestinian negotiators had expressed a willingness to consider such a proposal and were in fact negotiating with Israeli negotiators on such a proposal.

2. "I find no interest in this approach among Jordanians, either those in government or those in leadership roles among the various ethnicities living in the country.”

Professor Falk was apparently unaware that the following statement had been recently made by Jordan’s Minister of Culture - Barakat Awajan:

“Jordan and Palestine are joined by one culture and connected by blood, geography and sacred ties”

My attempt to respond to Professor Falk has been met by an impenetrable fire wall. Three efforts to contact him using three different computers have not been successful. That is unfortunate.

Professor Falk is obviously well placed to know what is going on among the Palestinians.

I would regard his comments on discussions for a bi-national State being conducted between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators as well-sourced and authentic.

Jordanian knowledge and acquiescence in those negotiations can be gleaned from the above statement by Jordan’s Minister of Culture - which incidentally was made face to face to his Palestinian counterpart Anwar Abu Aisha in Amman.

US Secretary of State Kerry has not been travelling backwards and forwards between America and the Middle East merely to have his prestige and reputation trashed in a repeat of what has occurred to previous Secretaries of State over the past 20 years.

Creating a bi-national State in Jordan has always been the solution most likely to succeed in resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

It is a solution which accords with the historic, geographic and demographic realities of the region and will result in the Jews ending up with sovereignty in about 20% of Mandate Palestine and the Arabs with sovereignty in about the remaining 80%.

There will be many Jews and Arabs not happy with an outcome that does not yield them 100% and the other nothing.

That however is not what a settlement is about. A good settlement is one which leaves both sides bemoaning what they have gained.

Professor Falk’s opinion that the bi-national state is the best of many bad options will surely resonate with the Palestinians. He has their confidence and their ear. I hope he is instrumental in helping them understand the wisdom of accepting such a resolution - if further conflict and suffering is to be avoided.

Maybe indeed we might at last just be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel after travelling for more than 95 years in the darkness - witnessing conflict after conflict with intolerable suffering for both Jews and Arabs.

After all - the right to breathe is the most fundamental human right we all have.

Palestine - UN Special Rapporteur Bans Free Speech

[Published 31 March 2013]


United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” - Professor Richard Falk - has taken the extraordinary action to ban posts on his blog page “Citizen Pilgrimage”.

This has happened to myself and at least one other person when we attempted to post comments in response to an article written by Professor Falk titled ” What was wrong with Obama’s speech in Jerusalem”

My detailed comment sought to point out what was right with President Obama’s speech in Jerusalem. It had been published as an article on many Internet pages around the world and reproduced on the web sites of scores of others without editorial amendment.

I presented a considered and reasoned analysis of what President Obama had said. It was not couched in inflammatory or defamatory terms. It considered aspects of President Obama’s speech not referred to in Professor Falk’s article and came to an entirely different conclusion to the views expressed by Professor Falk.

To my amazement Professor Falk’s response to my post was:

“My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemics on the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are many other more important venues to carry on these discussions.”

My reply to Professor Falk - pointing out his decision amounted to the banning of free speech and requesting he reconsider his decision - went unanswered.

I subsequently sought to post an entirely different response to another contributor’s comment - but it was also not published.

One person who sought to post a comment to Professor Falk’s article received the following response:

“Mr. Skolnik: My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemical responses that insult either me or others who submit comments. There are many other venues for this sort of debate.”

Stangely Professor Falk had no similar qualms in publishing the following comment from one of his readers:

“I have been following events in Israel and Cyprus closely, and stand by my assertions. I find it both fascinating and terrifying that Germany is the force behind the Cypriot haircut, in which unscrupulous jewish industrialists, all of whom hold Israeli passports, are having their bank accounts seized and money transferred to Germany. Who would have predicted this turn of events, but really, once you spot the pattern, it becomes impossible to deny this jaw-dropping turn of events, and its ominous implications.”

It is clear that there are many readers of Professor Falk’s blog who would be grossly offended by this Jew-hating language - yet it was published.

I do not seek to silence these Jew-haters airing their views on Professor Falk’s blog. Better the world should be aware such views exist and are exposed to critical comment.

My articles sometimes attract such vile and repulsive comments. Never would I seek to have them expunged. I prefer to respond to such comments or let my readers do so.

But why should a UN Rapporteur concerned with human rights seek to ban the views of others like myself and Mr Skolnik - if he allows such a vile post as this to appear as a comment on the same blog page?

Intrigued by the Professor’s totally unexpected and unexplained reaction to my post - I contacted other sites where his article had been published.

One was a virulently Jew-hating web site called “Shoah - The Palestinian Holocaust” It had no problem posting the identical response that I attempted to post on Professor Falk’s web page

Another was “Ramy Abdeljabbar’s Palestine and World News” - not what one would call a pro-Israel site. It published my response to Professor Falk’s article without indulging in the histrionics and petulance displayed by Professor Falk.

A third site was “Transcend Media Service” - which describes itself in the following terms:

“TRANSCEND International is an experiment in promoting peace by peaceful means throughout the world. Traditionally, institutes have been centered around a building where the people who work together meet on a regular basis. Since many people who share common interests in helping transform conflicts nonviolently and creatively are geographically scattered and cannot usually be physically together, our solution is to create an electronic network of members. This, in addition, diminishes our carbon footprints and contributes to attenuate the global warming crisis.”

Professor Falk is a member of the Transcend Network.

Transcend saw nothing objectionable in posting my response to Professor Falk’s article

Professor Falk needs to understand that attempts by him to ban freedom of expression and free speech on his web site demean himself and his position as a UN Special Rapporteur.

Those in authority at the UN who repeatedly express their support for the protection of human rights must be prepared to act against one of their own by denouncing Professor Falk’s actions in the strongest terms with a view to ending his crass attempt to deny the inalienable right of every human being to speak out and be heard.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and members of the UN Human Rights Council - are you listening or do you endorse Professor Falk’s outrageous conduct?

Palestine - Falk's Failed Philosophy Guarantees Continuing Conflict

[Published 1 November 2012]


Professor Richard Falk - United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 - has returned to world headlines with another controversial annual Report.

Falk this time round has encouraged a boycott of United States industry giants Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett Packard and Motorola, Israeli cosmetic firm Ahava, Cemex of Mexico, Veolia Environment of France, G4S of the United Kingdom and Volvo Group of Sweden, among others, and for civil society to join that effort.

His call amounts to a denial of the rights of people to choose who they deal with, where they establish their businesses and who they employ. The successful implementation of Falk’s call will lead to the loss of employment, loss of dignity and inability to provide food and shelter for those put out of work as a result - exacerbating rather than helping to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Professor Falk said the focus on the business community was partly an expression of frustration over the failure to persuade Israel to comply with its fundamental legal obligations.

Professor Falk’s notion of what Israel’s “fundamental legal obligations” are - can best be gleaned from the following comments made by him during an exchange with me on his personal blog site on 1 August 2012:

"I really do respect your concern with the historical background of the conflict, and how it bears on the merits of various lines of interpretation from the perspective of relative rights and international law. I hold two views, however, that make it seem to me not useful, in fact, the opposite to dwell on these concerns at this stage: first, a long political process ever since the UN was established that has settled the international law questions in favor of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination, and even refugees, and I find that these outcomes accord with my sense of justice in determining the relations between the two peoples; I believe that Israel has itself generally, although indirectly, acknowledged this conclusion by using its leverage to avoid the intrusion of international law issues in ‘the peace process’ and by defying international law when it cannot avoid its relevance (wall advisory opinion of ICJ; Goldstone Report)

Secondly, I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law."

Professor Falk’s peremptory dismissal of settled international law between 1919 and 1947 in relation to the former territory of Palestine - part of the former Ottoman Empire for 400 years until its capture by Great Britain in World War 1 - is puzzling.

The Treaty of Versailles, the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of Lausanne, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter are all dismissed as a“classic colonial moves” in what can only be displayed as a breathtaking display of arrogance by Professor Falk.

Indeed his rejectionist views are identicl to the views espoused by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Article 20 of the PLO Covenant:-

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void"

Professor Falk - like the PLO - prefers to abandon these internationally sponsored legal building blocks in favour of:

“a long political process ever since the United Nations was established that has settled the international law questions in favour of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination and even refugees.

With the greatest respect to Professor Falk - international law is not settled by pronouncements of the United Nations but by judgments and advisory opinions delivered by the International Court of Justice operating within the jurisdictional parameters conferred on it by the United Nations Charter.

There have been no binding resolutions by the United Nations in relation to settlements, Jerusalem, self determination or refugees that can be used as a basis for approaching the International Court of Justice to seek their enforcement against Israel.

If there were - Israel’s enemies would most certainly have been queuing up at the International Court seeking orders long ago.

Professor Falk sees as extant the League of Nations unanimous decision to recognise the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there.

The preservation of that right as enshrined in Article 80 of the 1945 UN Charter is also irrelevant in Professor Falk’s blinkered view.

By some queer quirk of logic Professor Falk wants to take as his starting point in the Jewish-Arab conflict either the “1948 partition proposal” or the “1967 boundaries”.
Neither of Professor Falk’s starting points even exist.

There was a 1947 - not 1948 - partition proposal by the United Nations.

The Arabs regrettably rejected that proposal. The opportunity then afforded by the United Nations to end the Jewish-Arab conflict cannot possibly be replicated 64 years later.

There were no 1967 boundaries - but there were 1967 armistice lines. The difference between the two is critical and cannot be transposed as Professor Falk seeks to do.

Professor Falk’s claim that Israel is defying international law in relation to the wall advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is equally without substance since that decision is non-binding according to the Court’s own constitution.

One would expect a Professor of Law to be precise and accurate in his choice of language and attention to factual detail. Professor Falk fails on both counts.

Professor Falk is certainly entitled to espouse the views he does.

However, his entitlement to continue in his role as a Special Rapporteur must surely be questioned when he seeks to ignore a whole body of settled international law created before 1948 - whilst continuing to act in this highly sensitive position.

A new appointment to replace Professor Falk should be a priority.

His use-by date has surely been reached.

United Nations Must Liberate Gazans - Not Gaza

[Published June 2010]

The statements issuing from senior United Nations officials following the two failed attempts by the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza during the past week were strident and uncompromising - but entirely misdirected and unhelpful in seeking an end to the misery and suffering being endured by Gaza’s civilian population.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon headed the protests condemning Israel’s failure to allow the blockade to be breached stating:

“The long-running closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is counter-productive, unsustainable and wrong. It punishes innocent civilians. It must be lifted by the Israeli authorities immediately.”

The Secretary General was supported by Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco who told the UN Security Council that :

“today’s bloodshed would have been avoided if repeated calls on Israel to end the counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza had been heeded…the blockade is unacceptable and counterproductive and must end.”

Not wishing to be left out on a limb - Richard Falk - the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory - characterized the blockade of Gaza as a

“massive form of collective punishment… Unless prompt and decisive action is taken to challenge the Israeli approach to Gaza all of us will be complicit in criminal policies that are challenging the survival of an entire beleaguered community,”

Strangely missing from all three statements was any mention or criticism of:

(i) Egypt - which had also been maintaining the blockade of Gaza for as long as Israel.

(ii)Hamas - which had assumed control of Gaza in 2007 after a bloody internecine struggle with the Palestinian Authority - leading to the joint blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt in an attempt to restrict the flow of arms, war materials and terrorists into Gaza.

(iii)The FGM - whose motives in organizing the attempted breaches of the blockade went far beyond those of a humanitarian organisation purely seeking to end the suffering of the Gazans.

The FGM’s end game is identical to that of Hamas - the destruction of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. This is not a secret agenda but is made very clear in its mission statement which declares:

“6. We recognize the right of all Palestinian refugees and exiles and their heirs to return to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories; to recover their properties, and to receive compensation for damage, dispossession and unlawful use of such property. This is an individual and not a collective right, and cannot be negotiated except by the individual”

The FGM is perfectly entitled to espouse such views. However the insistence on this right of return has been one of the main stumbling blocks in arriving at the “two-state solution” over the last 17 years.

Israel will not accept this demand - whether it is sought to be enforced by individuals or by either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Compensating both Palestinian Arab refugees as well as Jews who fled Arab countries following the 1948 War through the establishment of an international claims tribunal offers a possible way forward.

However if return - rather than compensation - is to be pressed then it can only ever come about as a result of conflict - which will make the current humanitarian problem in Gaza pale into insignificance by comparison with the humanitarian crisis that would be created if force was employed to achieve this objective.

Breaking the blockade will greatly strengthen Hamas in pursuing the right of return that the FGM also openly calls for - by allowing Hamas the freedom to bring into Gaza whatever weapons and terrorists it wants.

The FGM does not seem to be too concerned that in seeking to end the suffering of the Gazans this might become the prelude to inflicting suffering on the Israelis as Hamas pursues its stated aim of liberating Palestine.

The Gazans therefore remain stuck between Israel and Hamas as human shields to deter any military efforts by Israel to defeat this Hamas end game. Their plight has become increasingly evident since Israel’s unsuccessful attempt to rid Gaza of Hamas control in January 2009.

The UN are being taken for fools and need to rethink their attitude to Gaza.

If the UN truly wishes to end the privation and suffering of the Gazans then there is only one way out of the current predicament - the evacuation of the Gazans from Gaza.

The Gazans are in a situation fraught with danger as they live between two combatants - Israel and Hamas . Gazans need to be offered the opportunity to evacuate Gaza to safer havens until it is safe for them to return to Gaza.

Evacuation through Egypt to those countries willing to accept the evacuees should not be beyond the capacity of the 191 countries that make up the UN. Certainly the 57 states that comprise the Organization of the Islamic Conference must play a leading role in accepting the evacuees.

Israel was able to absorb one million refugees from Russia. It should not be beyond a concerned world to accommodate a similar number of Gazan evacuees on a temporary basis until circumstances permit their return to Gaza.

Certainly many Gazans will not want to be evacuated - but all should at least be given the opportunity to do so by the UN.

Israel will not be ending its blockade though it may well ease it. However useless calls such as those emanating from the Secretary General and his minions calling for an end to the blockade will continue to be rejected - with good reason - by Israel.

Israel is entitled in its national interest to do everything in its power to blunt Hamas and secure the safety and security of all Israelis - both Jews and Arabs.

Instead of futilely continuing to challenge Israel’s approach to Gaza - the UN should try to do something positive to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Failure to implement a policy of evacuation of Gaza’s civilian population will indeed make the UN complicit in failing Gaza’s beleagured community when it had the opportunity to end their current suffering - but did nothing constructively to do so.

The UN at the very least must follow the practice of its own High Commissioner for Human Rights — Navi Pillai - who at the height of the Sri Lanka conflict in 2009 called for the evacuation of the entire civilian population by land or sea.

Failure to similarly do so now in the case of Gaza will condemn the UN as a totally impotent, biased and irrelevant body.