COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES AND MISSION TO BEIT HANOUN

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard the presentation of reports by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard, and a member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun, Christine Chinkin.

Mr. Dugard reported on the failure of his fact-finding mission of July 2006 to investigate the situation in Gaza following the commencement of Operation Summer Rains by the Israeli Defence Forces after the Government of Israel had failed to give its consent. He said his report on the situation in the Occupied Territories covered human rights violations in the territories. The Human Rights Council should use its best endeavours to persuade Israel to accept this mandate and work with the mandate-holder. Settlements constituted a form of colonialism and violated Geneva Conventions and numerous General Assembly resolutions. There were clear similarities between the Occupied Palestinian Territories and apartheid in South Africa. Laws and practices discriminated against Palestinians. The Special Rapporteur asked what the legal consequences were of an occupation regime, with apartheid characteristics, that had existed for over 40 years? Failure on the part of the international community to find and pursue a common policy had serious implications for the future of human rights.

Ms. Chinkin said the Council had before it a letter from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to the President of the Council, setting out the events surrounding the appointment of the members of the mission, its work in Geneva, and the ultimate failure of Israel to provide the mission with the necessary official visas for it to carry out its mandate. It was and remained a matter of grave concern that a duly-mandated mission of the Council would be prevented from addressing a critical human rights situation due to the non-cooperation of a concerned Government in respect of issuing visas. The events of early November 2006 in Gaza and in Beit Hanoun in particular, required an investigation into possible serious human rights violations by Israel. The mission had concluded that a substantive report relying on second-hand information and insights was not envisaged in the clear wording of the resolution. The need remained for an investigation as requested by the Council, with a view to formulating recommendations for the protection of the human rights of individuals in the area.

Speaking as concerned countries on the two reports were Israel and Palestine.

Israel said the report of Mr. Dugard was utterly one-sided, highly selective, and unreservedly biased. The obsessive accusations in the report, as formulated under a one-sided mandate, did nothing to solve the acute problems in the region. On the
high-level mission, the speaker said Israel had been the subject of unprecedented and disproportionate interest and attention from the United Nations, which far exceeded that of any other country seated in this hall. Israel was willing to undertake difficult self-reflection, admit where it made mistakes, and strive to ensure that lessons were learnt and implemented. It had done so in the case of Beit Hanoun, a tragic event, which was thoroughly investigated by the Israeli authorities.

Palestine welcomed the report of Mr. Dugard and its true portrayal of the Israeli occupation as a blend of occupation, colonialism and apartheid. In response to the report of the high-level mission, Palestine said it was certainly not in the interest of Israel to receive a fact-finding mission concerning the committed massacre in Beit Hanoun lest the facts were formally documented and brought before this Council for further action with a view to bringing the responsible Israeli war criminals to justice. The Council should not get involved by default in granting most favoured nation status to any country.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the report on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory were Cuba, Senegal, the Russian Federation, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, Morocco, Tunisia, China, Bangladesh, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Canada, Mali, Zambia, Jordan, the League of Arab States, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Kuwait, United States, Chile, Venezuela and Qatar.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the report on the fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun were Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, Cuba, Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, Mexico, Peru, Indonesia and Bangladesh.

The Council is scheduled to reconvene on Thursday, 23 March at 10 a.m., at which time it will conclude the interactive dialogue on the two reports. It will then hear presentations of reports by its mandate-holders on the human rights situations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Burundi and Liberia.

Reports before the Council

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard (A/HRC/4/17), which says Gaza has again been the focus of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The siege of Gaza is a form of collective punishment in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949. The indiscriminate use of military power against civilians and civilian targets has resulted in serious war crimes. The West Bank has also experienced serious human rights violations resulting from frequent military incursions; the construction of the Wall; house demolitions and checkpoints. There are serious complaints about the treatment, trial and imprisonment of the 9,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. Israeli law and practice makes it impossible for thousands of Palestinian families to live together, and a new practice of refusing visas to foreign residents in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has aggravated this situation. There is a humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory resulting from the withholding of funds owed to the Palestinian Authority by the Government of Israel and from the economic isolation of the territory by the United States, the European Union and other States in response to the election of the Hamas Government. Israel is clearly in military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. At the same time, elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. The apparent failure of Western States to take steps to bring such a situation to an end places the future of the international protection of human rights in jeopardy, as developing nations begin to question the commitment of Western States to human rights.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 pursuant to resolution 3/1 of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/4/116), which recalls that on 6 July 2006, the Council adopted resolution S-1/1 in which it decided “to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967”, following commencement of “Operation Summer Rains” by the Israel Defense Forces. In its resolution 3/1, the Council noted with regret that resolution S-1/1 had not been fulfilled and called for its speedy implementation, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding mission; and requested the Special Rapporteur to report to it on the implementation of that resolution. The Special Rapporteur says that he reported to the Council on 29 September that he had been unable to carry out the fact-finding mission as a result of the failure of the Government of Israel to consent to it. He did visit the Occupied Palestinian Territory in December 2006, in his capacity as Special Rapporteur, for which consent was not required. During the December visit, the Special Rapporteur did not undertake fact-finding, as that was not the purpose of the visit and he lacked the expertise to carry out such a task on his own.

The Council has before it the Letter dated 11 December 2006 from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Head of Delegation of the High-Level Fact-Finding Mission established under Human Rights Council resolution S-3/1, addressed to the President of the Council (A/HRC/4/113), which says travel to Israel and Gaza was planned for 10 to 15 December 2006. As of the writing of the letter, 11 December 2006, no formal response to the Mission's request for visas has been received. The Mission has considered other means of fulfilling the mandate entrusted to it by the Council, such as travel to Beit Hanoun via Egypt; however, this option would not have allowed the Mission to meet with Israeli individuals and organizations, which would be central to comprehensive consideration of the context in general and the events in Beit Hanoun in particular. Regrettably, the Mission is unable to fulfil its mandate.

Presentation of Reports by Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967

JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, reported on the failure of his fact-finding mission of July 2006. The Human Rights Council had resolved to send this mission to investigate the situation in Gaza following the commencement of Operation Summer Rains by the Israeli Defence Forces. Preparations had been made, but the Government of Israel had failed to give its consent. The Special Rapporteur had visited Israel in December 2006 – not pursuant to the resolution S-1/1, but rather in his capacity as Special Rapporteur, and he expressed his appreciation to the Government of Israel for facilitating that visit.

The report on the situation in the occupied Territories covered human rights violations in the occupied territories. It did not deal with violations against Israelis, nor human rights violations in the context of the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, though these matters were also of concern. Gaza remained an imprisoned society. Civilians had been killed and wounded by the "prison guards", homes destroyed, infrastructure wrecked, agricultural land levelled, and the people impoverished and made dependent on food aid. In the West Bank the situation was little better, with increased military incursions, and a security Wall that continued to disrupt the lives of Palestinians. Checkpoints, now over 500 in number, made travel a nightmare; road apartheid had intensified, notably in the Jordan Valley. Settlements had increased in size and population. There were over 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in jail, complaints of poor treatment of prisoners, and targeted assassinations – effectively implementing the death penalty without trial. Settlements constituted a form of colonialism and violated Geneva Conventions and numerous General Assembly resolutions. There were clear similarities between the Occupied Palestinian Territories and apartheid in South Africa: laws and practices discriminated against Palestinians; there was a system of separate but unequal roads; separate residential areas; and a prohibition on Palestinians living with Arab-Israeli spouses. It could surely not be denied that these measures had the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one race over another.

Apartheid and colonialism were contrary to international law. Occupation was a lawful regime – tolerated, but not approved. The Special Rapporteur asked what the legal consequences were of an occupation regime, with apartheid characteristics, that had existed for over 40 years? There was a desperate need for consensus on the part of the international community towards Palestine. To the developing world, it was seen as a case of a Western-affiliated regime subjugating a developing people. The West preferred to pursue a policy of appeasement. Failure on the part of the international community to find and pursue such a common policy had serious implications for the future of human rights.


Statements by Concerned Countries

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said the report presented was once again representative of the mandate under which the Special Rapporteur operated: it was utterly one-sided, highly selective, and unreservedly biased. Large segments had been imported whole from previous reports, including many inaccuracies, begging the question as to why the Special Rapporteur needed to visit the region on a regular basis if the observations were pre-determined. Clearly the report would have been considerably more substantial and definitely more balanced if the Special Rapporteur took the time to investigate the context in its entirety, including the Palestinians human rights violations against both Israel and each other. But while previous Rapporteurs had resigned due to the blatantly anomalous nature of their mandate, this Rapporteur preferred to turn a blind eye.

The obsessive accusations in the report, as formulated under a one-sided mandate, did nothing to solve the acute problems in the region; the resort to inflammatory language did nothing to contribute to the process of constructive dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians. As the closing stage of the institution-building phase of the new Council came to an end, it was hoped that that mandate would be objectively and fairly reviewed in order to accurately reflect facts on the ground, striving for balance and taking into consideration all human rights violations and all human rights violators. It was also hoped that whoever was appointed to replace the Special Rapporteur when his duties ended would make the utmost efforts to use the post to promote constructive dialogue, maintaining a semblance of balance, a sense of fairness, and awareness of reality. The Human Rights Council had more pressing matters to attend than repeatedly tabling a politicized and selective resolution which had already been effectively realized.

MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said Palestine welcomed the report of Mr. Dugard and its true portrayal of the Israeli occupation as a blend of occupation, colonialism and apartheid. Palestine hoped that the Council ensured the implementation of its resolution S-1/1 of 6 July 2006, including the dispatching of the fact-finding mission called for therein which had been blocked by Israel, the occupying power. It was not a matter of amusement for Palestine that sanctions had been imposed on the victim instead of on the aggressor. The Council should be the spearhead in fighting against that sinister regime, which defied and trampled on all instruments of international law and on the very dignity of the Palestinian people.

The question of Palestine was central in world affairs, and it had been used and misused. The waves of extremism from which the world suffered owed their creation in a large part to the lack of determined policies and actions to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the other occupied Arab territories. The policy of dispatching envoys pronouncing declarations about imminent solutions, which merely served to set the ground for the implementation of military and political plans in its region, should change. It was abundantly clear by now that seeking to serve the interest of one party at the expense of the whole region had proved to be a lose-lose formula for all.

Interactive Dialogue on Reports by Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the Special Rapporteur's report had documented extensive and serious human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories – including with regard the two recent military campaigns and the suffering they had caused; illegal construction of the wall; and establishment of control posts and settlements – which constituted a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Also of concern were political prisoners, and the illegal retention of funds - a measure backed by the United States, the European Union and other Western countries, further impoverishing the Palestinians. There had been many resolutions condemning these human rights violations by Israel and its accomplice the United States of America. Far from being resolved, the suffering was worsening. The strident rhetoric of the West seemed to be reserved for this subject. This issue should be on the Council agenda until the Occupation was ended. The issue concerned the deprivation of the inalienable right of self-determination. The case of the Palestinian people was one of a developed nation suppressing a developing one. The ongoing situation called into question the very commitment of the international community to human rights, and was the apartheid regime of their time.

MOUSSA BOCAR LY (Senegal) said the Special Rapporteur’s report once again confirmed the extent of deprivation of all kinds to which the Palestinian people were subjected on a daily basis, with the violation of their basic rights, economic, social and cultural. The message of hope that had been sent was still waiting to be turned into concrete action. Today more than ever, the Council's collective consciousness was required to give hope of a better world to those who continued to pay a heavy price in the degradation of their minimal conditions of life. Today, there were still no efforts taken to seriously find a lasting peace in the Middle East.

The Human Rights Council, in keeping with its mandate to protect and promote human rights, had devoted two extraordinary sessions to examining the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it was crucial that during this session all means were found to effectively implement the resolutions issuing therefrom in order to ensure the credibility of the Council. Developing nations were beginning to question the real intention of developed nations to promote human rights, as there were ongoing violations. There was a need for a reaction to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which should weigh on the consciences of all those who valued justice and peace.

SERGEY KONDRATIEV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation welcomed the detailed and objective report of the Special Rapporteur John Dugard. A just solution to the Palestinian problem remained one of the main tasks of the international community to ensure peace in the region. Bilateral and multilateral efforts were needed. The Russian Federation stressed the need to carry on with the negotiating process to resolve the situation, and highlighted the importance of the inter-Palestinian agreement that had been achieved. Cooperation and dialogue between all States were prerequisites for them to be part of the international community. Double standards could not be accepted. For some States there were ultimatums and sanctions, while others enjoyed impunity. Given that situation, the Russian Federation regretted that the previous resolutions of the Human Rights Council in this area had not yet been implemented.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said it was regrettable that the Special Rapporteur had not been able to carry out his fact-finding mission following the extensive military operations against Palestinians in Gaza, and that the mission to Beit Hanoun had also not been allowed to visit. The report set out the number of Palestinians killed, including children, in Gaza between June and November 2006, the number of homes and mosques destroyed and detailed the infrastructure that had been wrecked. Gaza was under siege. Over 80 percent of the population lived below the poverty line, and the indiscriminate and excessive use of force, restrictions on freedom of movement, and destruction of homes and buildings constituted a gross form of collective punishment. Those facts, coupled with the construction of the Wall, checkpoints, roadblocks, settlements, demolitions, targeted assassinations and violations of civil and political rights mentioned in the report, were a travesty. The Council should demand an end to Israel’s violations of human rights and measures should be agreed upon to ensure that Israel complied with international humanitarian and human rights law.

MUHAMMAD ANSHOR (Indonesia) said Indonesia appreciated the report of the Special Rapporteur, as it was conscientious. The Special Rapporteur's repeated attempts to conduct his visit and keep the Council informed of developments in the human rights situation were also appreciated. On 6 July 2006, the Council’s first special session adopted a resolution to despatch a Special Rapporteur to investigate the consequences of Israeli air strikes, in response to the Council’s mandate to protect and promote human rights in all parts of the world. That decision was not political in nature.

The Special Rapporteur and the Council had met with systematic delays and difficulties from Israel in allowing the mission to take place. The Government of Israel’s uncooperative attitude showed a lack of consideration for the needs of those in humanitarian distress, and a disregard of their suffering. By this and other actions, Israel weakened its credibility. It was regrettable that the four special resolutions had not responded to and remedied the humanitarian crisis. The Council could not allow that situation to continue if it were to be a strong and credible body, capable of fulfilling its mandate. It was urgent that the Council took steps to remedy that situation, and reflected how and through what procedure it could ensure implementation of its decisions.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said Malaysia fully associated itself with the statements made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The failure of Israel to cooperate with the two fact-finding missions was a real affront to the Council’s authority and integrity and certainly necessitated serious attention. Malaysia called for sincere efforts by all who championed the cause of human rights – and who genuinely desired to make the new Council an effective and credible human rights organ – to address that challenge.

Malaysia had been amazed at the speed and enthusiasm shown in relation to the implementation of and follow-up to decision S-4/101 on the situation of human rights in Darfur. Regrettably, the same could not be said of the resolutions adopted at the two special sessions relating to the grave human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. A different emphasis and urgency were being accorded to the implementation of the Council's decisions. Malaysia asked what the Council could do to contribute to alleviating the grave human rights situation and the untold hardship and suffering of the Palestinians living under the prolonged Israeli military occupation. As rightly put by the Special Rapporteur, the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian Territory constituted a form of colonialism and of apartheid, which were contrary to international law.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, thanked the Special Rapporteur for the objectivity of his report, which highlighted the flagrant violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Special Rapporteur had lamented the collective punishment, the hundreds of homes destroyed, the aggression levied against holy sites, the construction of the Wall and the ensuing apartheid suffered by the Palestinian people. The report, however, could not be considered as an application of resolution S-1/1, and the high-level fact-finding mission that had been envisaged, because entry visas to some members of the mission had been denied. The Council was called upon to end the situation of impunity and irresponsibility enjoyed by Israel. Systems of colonialism, apartheid and occupation were all unacceptable, and Israel had all of those in place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Algeria said a possible recourse would be to seek an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal aspects of these violations. The Council should grapple with this matter without being selective in the process.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the report was of high quality, and clearly confirmed the high degree of suffering the Palestinian people lived with every day, given the daily violations of their human rights, and the use of excessive force by the authorities of the Israeli occupation. This year was a crucial one for the future of the Council, as it was establishing its foundations and mechanisms, which would work to protect and promote human rights throughout the world. The Council and its decisions had an important impact on the situation that millions were living in, and on the enjoyment of their rights. Today it was clear that two of the Council’s resolutions had not been implemented, due to the refusal of the Israeli authorities to cooperate. The Council should assert its authority so that these missions could take place, and the truth be established fully.

The Palestinian people were suffering every day from the grave violations of their fundamental human rights, to life, food, dignity, housing, health, and a decent life. The destruction and damage of basic infrastructure, services and electricity networks among others, as well as collective punishment, gravely infringed the human rights of the Palestinian people. The international community should act so that Israel should be made to live up to its international obligations with regards to the rights of the Palestinian people. It could never be repeated enough that no military solution would resolve the situation in the Middle East; the only solution was a return to the negotiating table and full respect of the rights of the Palestinian people, with their own State with Al Quds as its capital.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said that Tunisia aligned itself with the declaration made on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The report on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories had detailed the numerous daily difficulties which Palestine people were confronted with, for example from the construction of the wall. The Palestinian people were living through a crisis. More than 1,500 Palestinians had been injured between June and November 2006. Tunisia called upon the Council to take up the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur to end the violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The security of the Palestinian people should be guaranteed, and more funds provided to them to ensure peace and security in the whole region.

GUO JIAKUN (China) said China appreciated Mr. Dugard’s efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There had been serious casualties on both sides, but especially on the Palestinian side, and those were worsening. There was a high level of poverty and unemployment, continued armed attacks and military blockades, leading to untold suffering among the population. The people had no secure home. Without resolving this issue there would be no peace in the Middle East. Both sides should stop attacking each other and solve the dispute through political negotiations on the principle of land for peace. China hoped the two great peoples, Jewish and Arab, would be able to resolve their historic grievances. China would work with the international community to assist in the resolution of the matter. The right to self-determination was a key right that the Council should take into account in this regard.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the report depicted an authentic but bleak picture of the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which was deteriorating every day. The Palestinian people were in a dire situation due to Israeli blockades, confiscation of land, demolition of houses, and erection of separation walls. Israeli settlements, land confiscation and the construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories were contrary to the Geneva Conventions and other norms of international law. A lasting and viable peace in the region could not be achieved until the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people were recognized and the Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the occupied territory.

The Human Rights Council should address situations of gross and systematic violations of human rights without selectivity and with equal importance. Human rights should be kept above politics and political manoeuvring. The Council should look for objectivity and gravity, not seek for balance in responding to a human rights situation. The concept of balance did not exist in the case of human rights instruments. The decisions of the Council should be action-oriented, enforceable and effective. The Council should therefore take a clear and unequivocal stand on Israel's flagrant defiance of international law, and particularly its violations of fundamental human rights. In Bangladesh's view, the Council needed to establish itself as a credible and effective body, and there could be no better example than by taking firm action in this case.

ANKE KONRAD (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union continued to be extremely concerned about the situation in the West Bank and Gaza. The European Union had on numerous occasions called upon both parties to bring an end to the violence and, as a member of the so-called Quartet, the European Union remained actively engaged in the search for a durable and peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of a two-State solution. The European Union shared the assessment of the Special Rapporteur, and indeed many other sources, that the human rights situation had worsened in the course of 2006. The European Union continued to have concerns on the scope of the mandate of the High-Level Fact-Finding Mission; however, it was of utmost importance that States fully cooperated with all Human Rights Council mechanisms, and therefore the European Union regretted that that fact-finding mission had not been able to implement its mandate so far.

The European Union had a couple of questions for the Special Rapporteur. First, what had been the legal basis for applying the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid to the situation in the occupied territories, as the Special Rapporteur had done in his report, implying a violation of that Convention. Secondly, did the Council see ways and means to strengthen its role and activities on this issue?

KARIM AMEGAN (Canada) said Canada objected to an accusation in the report suggesting Canada lacked coherence in its efforts to promote and protect human rights. Canada had constantly affirmed the need to end the violence, to abide by international law, and cease activities leading to human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The respect for human rights and humanitarian law on both sides was crucial to ensure the protection of civilians, and to establishing a climate conducive to a just and lasting peace agreement. The General Assembly had stated that the Council should serve to protect human rights and freedoms, justly and equitably, for all people. The Council had been tasked to succeed where the Commission had failed. The world was watching to see whether the promise would be fulfilled. Canada took seriously its role towards the Council and intended to continue.

FATOUMATA DIALL (Mali) said the report of the Special Rapporteur was of high quality, and brought to the attention of the international community the violations of human rights that had taken place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That was an intolerable situation, and the Council needed to find a solution to save the women and children of Gaza from the occupation and the weapons that were used there. The international community had remained powerless in the face of the disrespect of the most fundamental provisions of international law that had taken place over several decades. It was high time that the impunity of Israel came to an end, and that respect for its standards became the rule in the Council.

LOVE MTESA (Zambia) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report. Zambia regretted that it was not possible for the Special Rapporteur to visit the area. Despite that, Zambia accepted the report of the Special Rapporteur as authentic. Zambia called upon Israel to help bringing an end to the conflict. The acceptance of a two-state solution and a round table were necessary for that. Israelis and Palestinians should talk to each other. The world must help to bring an end to the suffering. The world powers had a responsibility to help the Israelis and Palestinians who were brothers and sisters to come together and live in peace.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said Mr. Dugard’s report was exhaustive and highly substantiated even though he could not carry out his mission. Jordan supported the statements by Algeria and Pakistan. Gaza and the West Bank were indeed in an appalling situation: military operations, the Wall, demolitions, checkpoints, and 900 political prisoners in Israeli jails; the continuing infringement of human rights indicated that Israel enjoyed impunity in the international arena. The King of Jordan had recently outlined in a speech the injustice done to the Palestinian people and said this had become the seed that fuelled all tension and conflict in the Middle East. Selectivity within the Human Rights Council was a dangerous path and could only devalue the principles of the Council. The Council should address the implementation of resolutions concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The young Council had shown willingness to act elsewhere, but unimplemented resolutions were of little value and would bring back accusations of double standards and politicization.

SAAD ALFARARGI (League of Arab Nations) said the report was a record of repeated violations of the people of the Palestinian territories, of the military occupation, the sending of rockets to destroy hospitals, schools, mosques, running water, electricity, and preventing 90 per cent of the population from working. This was collective punishment. More than 9,000 Palestinians languished in prison, including women and children. The Special Rapporteur was not able to go see what was happening, and all international documents had been ignored.

The human crisis was due to the Israeli detention of Palestinians, and the economic isolation of Palestine. This was a form of collective punishment on the Palestinian people, who were suffering from the authoritarianism displayed in these actions, contrary to international law. Apartheid and occupation were being carried out by Israel, in defiance of the international community and international law. The international community was responsible for what was happening in Palestine, and should respect human rights and international law, principles the West had always been proud of.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) said Egypt fully aligned itself with the statements made on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab Group. Egypt appealed to Professor Dugard to continue his arduous efforts to promote and protect the human rights of the Palestinian people. Egypt expected the Council to reaffirm the exceptional mandate of Professor Dugard pertaining to foreign occupation, through the adoption, by consensus, of the draft decision submitted, on behalf of the members of the OIC, on the issue. Egypt also welcomed Professor Dugard’s last report indicating the incessant deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory due to Israel’s repeated military incursions into Gaza, the massacre of Beit Hanoun, and the continuation of the construction of settlements and of the Wall.

Unfortunately, Israel continued to challenge the will of the international community by blatantly ignoring this Council’s resolutions. Israel had refused to receive two fact-finding missions. Egypt sincerely believed that if the raison d’être of the Council was to promote the human rights of all peoples without distinction whatsoever, then the Israeli defiance could only damage the credibility of the Council as an effective mechanism capable of ensuring compliance with its resolutions, thereby, providing to the victims of human rights violations everywhere that it could certainly make a difference in their lives. The politicisation of this issue continued to plague this Council. Egypt impressed upon the Council the importance of fulfilling its mandate in addressing gross and systematic violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people.

IGBAL ELAMIN (Sudan) said Sudan was concerned about the approach taken by the Human Rights Council, which was not using the standards of equality and non-discrimination in its handling of the matter. Was Human Rights Council protection only to be limited to regions rich in resources? The problem had been on the agenda of the West for 60 years but had not been resolved. Why was this? The situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories involved a range of human rights: rights to life, civil and political rights and economic and social rights were all being violated. Political manoeuvering by Israel was rejected.

SULAIMAN TABRIZI (Yemen) said deep gratitude and appreciation was due to the Special Rapporteur responsible for examining human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. His report was objective, referencing a number of serious human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories which were a flagrant breach of the right to life and existence and a violation of international legitimacy. The extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur until the end of occupation was vital and very necessary. Equity meant giving a voice to truth on the international stage, and the violation of human rights in Palestine by the Israeli Occupation meant that all previous resolutions should be implemented, putting an end to the occupation.

The will of the Palestinian people should be respected, as well as their democratic choices so that peace and international security could be restored, and an end made to the cruel massacres by the Israeli forces of the defenceless Palestinian civilians.

RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria) supported the statements of the Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The report of Mr. Dugard was very objective and factual. The laudable efforts of the Special Rapporteur were appreciated. There had been two extraordinary sessions in 2006 about the human rights committed by Israel. The report stated that Israel had made the entire territory a prison. The international community should put an end to the breaches of human rights, stop the suffering of Palestinian people and allow Palestine to become a sovereign State with Jerusalem as its capital. The international community was urged to assume its responsibility to lighten the suffering of the Palestinian people and to put an end to the occupation. Today, the Council was being institutionally constructed. Syria thought that it would be appropriate if the mandate of the Special Rapporteur could be extended.

ALIREZA MOYERI (Iran) said in spite of two Human Rights Council special sessions on Palestine, the situation had worsened while those responsible continued to ignore the Human Rights Council and its decisions with absolute impunity. There were serious and meaningful failures in cooperation on the part of the Israeli Government in the implementation of resolutions adopted by the Council. It was a cause for concern that Resolution S1/1 had not been implemented and high-level missions had not been able to accomplish their mandates. The situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories remained a test for the Human Rights Council. The report referred to economic sanctions on the Palestinian people by the West. Elected authorities of Palestine remained under arbitrary detention. The impunity granted to Israel as a result of the shameful veto by the United State had allowed the occupying power to continue its crimes and enhanced the aggressive policies and terrorist acts against innocent civilians. The Council had a responsibility to pursue the question permanently and efficiently. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur should be unequivocally maintained.

NAJLA MOHAMED BIN SALEM AL QASSIMI (United Arab Emirates) said the report was transparent and objective with regards to the human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law. The Palestinians had suffered from the practices imposed by the occupying forces for almost 40 years, suffering killings, confiscation of lands, checkpoints affecting daily life, all of which had a number of consequences. These measures had increased by more than 70 per cent the unemployment rate, and made the economic boycott worse. In the report there was an idea about looking to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. The international community should respect the opinions of the International Court of Justice, especially with regards to condemning Israel, in particular on the building of the Wall, and stop the building of the latter.

Peace and security could be brought to the region, but only through equity and justice. The Palestinian people had the right to construct an independent State, and should have their dignity and legitimate rights restored.

FAWZI ABUSAA (Libya) wished to endorse the statements made by the Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Libya welcomed the report of Professor Dugard. The report highlighted the violations of the Palestinian people on a daily basis. The situation could not continue this way. A just solution to the Palestine issue must be found so that peace and security were consolidated. The Palestinian people were thrown into prison, and their agricultural products were destroyed. Libya wished to add its voice to those calling for the respect for the rights of the Palestine people. In the report, the need of appealing to the International Court of Justice was mentioned as well.

SADIQ MARAFI (Kuwait) said that once again the Council was meeting to look at the rights of unarmed Palestinian people. Blockades and arbitrary and inhuman practices perpetrated against the Palestinian civilians were, as the report said, grave violations, but the Council must equally deplore the fact that the fact-finding mission could not go to the Occupied Palestinian Territories due to the intransigence and arrogance of the occupier, which continued to flout the international community. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate should continue until the occupation ceased. Occupying authorities should respect commitments in terms of human rights and facilitate resolution, restoring to the Palestinian people all their rights and enabling the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital. If Israel continued to flout the UN Charter and principles, it was because of continued hesitation by the United Nations and the Human Rights Council.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the United States shared the international community’s concerns regarding the hardships faced by Palestinians, however, it disagreed strongly with the assertion that the Quartet, an organization whose membership included the United Nations, was party to human rights abuses against the Palestinian people. The goal of the Roadmap, to which the international community had agreed, was creation of a future Palestinian State through peaceful negotiations and renunciation of terrorism.
The inappropriate comparison to apartheid was unhelpful. Such inflated arguments only served to undermine the Council’s credibility, while adding nothing to the search for peace. While the loss of all innocent life was regretted, there was a clear distinction between military operations by the Israeli Defense Force against terrorists, versus the deliberate targeting of civilians as commonly practices by terrorist organizations operating in the West Bank and Gaza. Seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice would not contribute to the parties’ efforts to resolve their differences and advance peace. The Quartet remained the appropriate body to deal with these issues.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) expressed appreciation for the report of the Special Rapporteur. Once again, the seriousness of the situation was depicted in the report. Chile called upon the directly involved countries to resume negotiations to conclude a stable a lasting peace for the entire region. This should then also enable the Palestinians to live in peace in their own state.

GABRIEL SALAZAR (Venezuela) said the suffering that Mr. Dugard had reported on had had a great impact. Once again the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was under discussion. But this was worse: intolerable suffering, land and air incursions in Gaza, the illegal practice of selective assassinations, bombing of infrastructure and depriving the people of electricity, and the sequestration of democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. These were flagrant violations of humanitarian law and human rights of the Palestinian people. Once again there had not been a successful end to the problem. Venezuela called on the State of Israel and its accomplices not to use violence, and demanded non-interference in the affairs of a State and a halt to the undermining of the sovereign rights of Palestinians. Western nations were accomplices to this situation. The Superpowers and their allies had coordinated action to frustrate balanced resolution of the issue. This was a double standard.

NASSER RASHID AL NUAIMI (Qatar) said the report submitted highlighted a situation that had persisted for more than 60 years. The apartheid and occupation were not regimes that could co-exist with human rights, and this was the essence of the report, which asserted that Israel was carrying out these practices. The Council should bring an end to the flouting of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and bring an end to the impunity Israel enjoyed.

An end should be brought to Israel’s intransigence, and their flouting of the will of the international community. The Palestinian people had been exiles in their own country for many years, and the time had come for them to live in peace and security in their own nation state, and all were responsible to ensure that they could do so.

SAMUEL KOTANE (South Africa) welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which was considered to be fractional and partial. South Africa was concerned about the human rights and humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people as a result of the Israeli occupation as amply catalogued in the report. Similarly, South Africa was concerned about the Government of Israel’s refusal to grant permission to the Human Rights Council’s two fact-finding missions to Palestine. The continued humanitarian crisis, which had unfolded in Palestine, had resulted in the gross violation of human rights of the Palestinian people and it could not be allowed to go unnoticed by the international community any longer.

South Africa reiterated the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It called for the implementation of the Road Map, which guaranteed the creation of a sovereign Palestine State living side by side with a secure Israeli State. South Africa envisaged engaging the Israeli-Palestine issue until its peaceful resolution. South Africa trusted that the Council would demonstrate a real commitment to ending the plight of the Palestinian people.

Remarks by the Special Rapporteur

JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, responding, said he was disappointed there had been so little response to his report other than from members of the Arab League and Organization of the Islamic Conference. Few comments had been made by Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. This was not a regional issue or a Muslim-only issue. He would appreciate more concern and participation from other countries. Israel had said that it had returned certain funds owed to the Palestinian Authority but the sum was not enough. Israel should respond to the substantive issues raised: checkpoints, the Wall, human rights issues - it did not help to accuse the Special Rapporteur of one-sidedness.
Mr. Dugard welcomed the few questions that had been asked on the detail of his report. Regarding the legal basis of the applicability of the Convention and the use of the term apartheid, he repeated that he would like to see the International Court of Justice involved in an advisory opinion on this. On how to strengthen non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the region, he stressed that both Palestinian and Israeli NGOs were doing much to further the cause of human rights there and deserved financial support.

The Special Rapporteur said he was disappointed there was little support on the proposal of an International Court of Justice involvement. Responding to the statement by the United States delegation, he said everyone was aware of the material assistance provided by the United States Government to the Palestinians. There was some inconsistency, but it was welcome nonetheless. But more active United States support for a peaceful settlement would be appreciated. The key to the future of the region was held by the United States and both Israelis and Palestinian recognized this. Regarding the Quartet, this body paid little attention to human rights concerns, or at least this was reflected in its public statements. Many people had said to him they were embarrassed by the United Nations involvement within the Quartet. The Security Council should investigate the extent to which human rights concerns were incorporated in the Quartet’s approach. There was a need to assess the Quartet’s role.

Presentation by Member of High-Level Fact-Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun

CHRISTINE CHINKIN, Member of the High-Level Fact-Finding Mission Established under Resolution S-3/1 to Beit Hanoun, said the Council had before it a letter from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to the President of the Council, setting out the events surrounding the appointment of the members of the mission, its work in Geneva, and the ultimate failure of Israel to provide the mission with the necessary official visas for it to carry out its mandate. It was and remained a matter of grave concern that a duly-mandated mission of the Council would be prevented from addressing a critical human rights situation due to the non-cooperation of a concerned Government in respect of issuing visas. The events of early November 2006 in Gaza and in Beit Hanoun in particular, required an investigation into possible serious human rights violations by Israel.

The mission carefully investigated the possibility of assessing the situation of victims and survivors by visiting places outside Israel and Gaza where those individuals may have been removed for medical treatment. The continued military occupation of Gaza itself was the greatest factor frustrating the mission, preventing as it did victims from leaving the territory, and the mission from entering. In light of these factors, the mission concluded that the failure by Israel to issue the necessary official visas frustrated the core of its mandate. The mission concluded that a substantive report relying on second-hand information and insights was not envisaged in the clear wording of the resolution. That said, the information provided suggested that the Israeli military operations in and around Beit Hanoun in November 2006 resulted in grave human rights violations.

Ms. Chinkin said the seriousness of the allegations relating to the Israeli military activity in and around Beit Hanoun last November should not be understated. In order to ascertain what had happened, and to assess the situation of those affected, the international community, through the Human Rights Council, decided to send an independent fact-finding mission to the town. To date, this had not been possible. Despite the passing of time and the consequent possible loss of evidence, the members of the mission felt strongly that the need remained for an investigation as requested by the Council, with a view to formulating recommendations for the protection of the human rights of individuals in the area.

Statements by Concerned Countries

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said by any possible standard, Israel had been the subject of unprecedented and disproportionate interest and attention from the United Nations, with countless visits by envoys, missions, non-governmental organizations and Special Rapporteurs, which far exceeded that of any other country seated in this hall. Nevertheless, Israel, as a democratic and pluralist State, had managed to maintain a policy of transparency and openness regarding such visits, provided that they met with minimum standards of neutrality and impartiality, based on due process, demonstrable expertise, and an objective and credible assessment. Problems arose when such visits were based on politicised, pre-determined processes.

The Special Session held in November 2006, which gave rise to resolution S-3/1, was just the latest in a long series of anti-Israel measures taken by the new and supposedly objective Council, a Council which, since its inception, had condemned Israel, and only Israel, eight times. In less than a year of operation, the Council had criticised any other country in the world exactly zero times. Israel was willing to undertake difficult self-reflection, admit where it made mistakes, and strive to ensure that lessons were learnt and implemented. It had done so in the case of Beit Hanoun, a tragic event which was thoroughly investigated by the Israeli authorities. Israel was never opposed to engagement with the international community, through dialogue and consultation, and not through the imposition of partisan resolutions leading to a predetermined and imbalanced outcome.

MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, thanked Professor Chinkin for her work on the Beit Hanoun fact-finding mission, which had not been dispatched. It was indeed unfortunate that Israel had kept her, as a distinguished member of the mission, and the head of the mission, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, waiting in Geneva with the hope of obtaining the Israeli access permit. Certainly it was not in the interest of Israel to receive a fact-finding mission concerning the committed massacre in Beit Hanoun lest the facts were formally documented and brought before this Council for further action with a view to bringing the responsible Israeli war criminals to justice. The mere fact that Israel had so far blocked two fact-finding missions decided upon by the Council without any effective reaction cast doubts on the whole concept of reform in the field of human rights manifested in the creation of this Council.

The Council should not get involved by default in granting most favoured nation status to any country, he said. Human Rights should not be subject to concessionary treatment. This Council was not an arena for the powerful and strong to pick and choose on the implementation of its resolutions nor a stage to demonstrate their ability to bring to the forefront issues of their choice, which served to further their interests. The Palestinian people have been deprived for decades of their humanitarian and human rights. Almost all noble humanitarian and human rights provisions had been systematically violated by Israel, the occupying power, driven by a culture of impunity. If the Council failed to apply human rights laws and its resolutions across the board without selectivity, Palestine suggested that the Council should change its title and mandate.

Interactive Dialogue on Report of High-Level Fact-Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said Israel had refused access to the fact-finding mission established by the Human Rights Council under Resolution S-3/1. This was an episode of grave human rights violations as defined by multiple international instruments and the United Nations Charter. The Beit Hanoun incident confirmed Israel’s persistent methodology of human rights violations. The Human Rights Council should deal with it appropriately, and recognize the danger this represented towards international peace and security. The Human Rights Council should not apply double standards. Israel’s persistence was a form of intransigence. Israel had not been brought to account as the Sudanese Government was being brought to account over Darfur. It had been proposed that a different fact-finding mission be sent to Beit Hanoun. The original mission had not been able to get first hand observations. Two fact-finding missions now had not been given access, and could not therefore submit recommendations. This was an issue of concern. All human rights should be dealt with on an equal basis.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the report of the high-level fact-finding mission was excellent, and note had been taken of the list of difficulties which the mission had to grapple with. The mission was decided upon during the third Special Session of the Council, recalling the terrible incidents of suffering that took place in Beit Hanoun. This was a special mission – with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Winner and Professor Chinkin, who was known for her independence and impartiality were members, representing North and South. The mission had a perfect balance to complete its work, and yet it was impeded from doing so.

Many Member States from the West who often spoke volubly on other issues in the Council, were absent in this debate on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and this was evidence of their hypocrisy. This issue was not seen as meriting the television cameras, nor did it merit the presence and empty rhetoric of the Western members.

BILAL HAYEE (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC deeply regretted that the high-level fact-finding mission had been unable to visit Beit Hanoun. The Council should denounce the massive destruction of Palestinians homes, property and infrastructure in Beit Hanoun. The high-level fact-finding mission had been mandated to assess the situation of the victims, address the needs of survivors and make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against further assaults. Regrettably, the fact-finding mission was prevented from investigating the implications of the military action that took place in November.

The OIC thanked the mission for its report, where it was, among other things, mentioned that the justification for the attack on Beit Hanoun had been stated as a defensive operation. However, even if that was so, the report had stated that the Israeli response was grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes. The OIC continued to urge the Council to ensure that the Beit Hanoun situation was investigated, compensation paid to all victims and the perpetrators prosecuted.

JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) thanked Professor Chinkin and Archbishop Tutu for their efforts in follow-up of the resolution S-1/1, and the incursion in Beit Hanoun. Mexico took note of Archbishop Tutu’s letter of 13 March stating the high importance of sending a high-level mission to the area, and the circumstances that impeded the fact-finding mission from taking place as mandated. Obstacles were being placed before the Council and its decisions. The lack of cooperation by a single State should not prevent the Council from following through. Universal criteria in the follow-up procedure should be applied, without distinction, on all decisions of the Council.

ALEJANDRO NEYRA (Peru) said the situation was an urgent one, and it was regretted that the high-level mission had been unable to comply with its mandate. There was also concern and regret that the Council, created in order to promote and improve the protection of human rights for all, had found an obstacle in the system. If the system were to be more efficient and appropriate for protecting the human rights of all, then it was very discouraging to discover this situation in which the mission could not fulfil its mandate. The need to fulfil the mandate remained, and it was hoped the situation would be rapidly resolved.

MUHAMMAD ANSHOR (Indonesia) associated itself with the statement of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The high-level fact-finding mission deserved Indonesia’s sincere appreciation. Unfortunately, the mission was prevented from fulfilling its mandate. Indonesia regretted the situation that hindered the mission in executing its work. Indonesia wished to repeat its call for the full implementation in a non-politicized manner. It was up to the Council and all its members to make the implementation become reality as soon as possible.

TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh) said Professor Chinkin’s statement was clear and telling. The integrity of the mission was shown by the decision not to submit a report based on secondary sources. It was hoped that a mission to Beit Hanoun would soon take place.

Remarks by Member of the High-Level Mission to Beit Hanoun

CHRISTINE CHINKIN, Member of the High-Level Mission to Beit Hanoun, responding, said she only wished to strongly reiterate, in reply to the Ambassador of Israel, that it was precisely because the mission did not wish to produce a predetermined report, and a wish for balance, that the mission had felt the need to go to the area, and produce a thoughtful, independent report that could contribute to solving some of the problems in the area.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07020E