The disgraceful display of politicking in Geneva by Palestinian diplomats can be turned around if the new president of the UN General Assembly has the courage to act, writes Curtis Doebbler The Goldstone Report on the violence in Gaza is a shocking record of the inhumanity of mankind in wartime. It was assumed that Israel, the main target of its criticism, and its principle ally the United States would oppose the report. What was not expected was how the report was suppressed in the UN Human Rights Council last week not by Israel and the United States directly, but by these two acting in synchronised concert with Palestinian diplomats in Geneva and Palestinian leaders in Ramallah. On 15 September 2009, the report of a team of four experts was published. The UN appointed team was led by world renowned and well-respected South African Judge Richard Goldstone. His team included a respected law professor, a human rights lawyer, and a military expert. When the report emerged it stunned the world as one of the best-documented descriptions of violations of human rights in war ever produced. The Goldstone Report documents allegations of international crimes with meticulously collected evidence and carefully analysis. It is a report of the highest standard of professionalism. It is a report commensurate with what one would expect from the group of leading legal experts. It describes the violations by Palestinians against Israelis and by Palestinians against each other, but it especially describes the numerous violations by Israelis and Israel against Palestinians living in Gaza. Because it was presented with such well-documented evidence it was widely assumed that all parties to the conflict would be concerned. This was the case with Israel, which after studying it for about 48 hours roundly rejected it. Gaza's authorities initially reacted with caution, but by the end of September had decided to accept the report's findings in full and to institute an investigation of the persons under its jurisdiction. Perhaps most disappointingly for proponents of international law and justice, the US ambassador to the UN, Ms Susan Rice, almost immediately rejected the report's findings without giving detailed reasons and apparently based solely on her political disagreement with any criticism of Israel. In addition, former human rights lawyer who had forsaken his profession to become US assistant secretary of state, Mr Michael Posner, stated that he "disagree[s] sharply with many of the report's assessments and its recommendations and believe[s] it to be deeply flawed". The dismissal of the well-documented report in such an arrogant manner by the administration of US President Obama had diplomats whispering in the halls of the UN that perhaps the new administration was as bad, or worse, than the Bush administration on Palestine. At least the old administration's confused and malicious ways had always been apparent. A wolf in sheep's clothing might be even more harmful to the international community that so wanted to establish a repertoire of cooperation with a state that has acted for the most part of the last decade as an international pariah. But even before the Goldstone Report been submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly, the United States was working not only at the UN in Geneva and New York but also in a host of capitals around the world to pressure and coerce states into taking no action on a report that called for action no less serious than the prosecution of international criminals. Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration, according to an administration official speaking on condition of anonymity, "used threats and bribes" to convince states to reject upholding international law in favour of policies that ensure impunity for violators of international law. That American allies like Britain and France fell into line behind the Obama administration like well-trained poodles was no surprise. That a weak African state like Cameroon would betray the memory of the liberation struggle of the African people and appear more compliant with the wishes of its former French colonial masters than it had under colonialism, might also be sadly expected. But what must shock the conscience of any person who believes in the rule of law is that Palestine's self-proclaimed leaders and Geneva diplomats would be so compliant with the wishes of the Israelis who have been oppressing them for more than 60 years and the Americans who supply or pay for the very weapons that have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and have forced millions of Palestinians to live in inhumane conditions for generations. Was this the consequence of threats and bribes? Were the Palestinian leadership and its diplomats so weak that they could not stand up to political threats when their people have steadfastly opposed an inhumane occupation for six decades? Could it be that that Palestinian leadership and its diplomats trust their enemies more than their friends? It certainly looked like one or all of the above were true last week in Geneva. From the start something seemed to be wrong. The Palestinian delegation began discussions of the draft Human Rights Council resolution on the Goldstone Report not with the Arab Group, the African Group, the Asian Group, or the states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, all of whom have strongly supported Palestine for decades. Instead, the Palestinian delegation, according to a US government official, approached the United States and began discussions on the resolution with the Americans and the Europeans. Such an unprecedented snub of Palestine's allies had diplomats from long-time supporters speaking of opposing Palestine or any resolution it might submit. The main force behind what transpired next appears to have been the Obama administration, and perhaps the US president himself. What better evidence could Obama proffer of America's duplicity in its self-proclaimed role of peace negotiator while it is the largest arms dealer to Israel? Of course, the Americans and Israelis were probably dancing in their permanent missions knowing that if nothing else they had been able to force a wedge between Palestine and its allies. But that was just the start. Quickly rumours spread in Geneva that the Palestinian delegation favoured a weak resolution on the Goldstone Report. At the same time these rumours were circulating in New York, around senior officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas who was in town. These rumours indicated that Abbas under pressure from the Americans, his own prime minster, Mr Salam Fayyad, and Mr Muhammad Dahlan, also favoured a weak resolution. Not only did this amplify the disappointment of many of Palestine's long-time allies, but also American and Israeli officials expressed their gratitude to Palestine. Why were the representatives of the Palestinian people so obviously shooting themselves in the foot to the glee of their enemies? Could it be that they felt duty bound to honour the wishes of the United States and Europe because they are the paymasters of the Palestinian government that is represented in Geneva? Or did they really believe that the US and Europe were the real allies of Palestine, not the Arab, African and Asian countries that were prepared to vote for a strong follow up to the Goldstone Report? In any event, Palestinian diplomats' efforts to weaken a resolution aimed at protecting their own people elicited expressions of disgust both from allies in Geneva and other capitals. One head of state, giving the Palestinian president himself the benefit of the doubt, reportedly asked the Palestinian leader to change his diplomats in Geneva. This understanding of the problem, however, proved overly optimistic. The actual orders to weaken the resolution allegedly came from the top. At the same time as Ambassador Ibrahim Khreisha was working in Geneva to weaken the Human Rights Council resolution, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings being held at UN headquarters in the United States, the Palestinian president was allegedly agreeing to submit to the pressure of the United States and Israel in a meeting between representatives of at least these three entities. The agreement was apparently a concession by the Palestinians to express their trust in the efforts of the Obama administration to bring peace to the region. The thrust of this agreement was that the Palestinians would not allow the Goldstone Report to become a past issue and as a quid pro quo the US gave an implicit commitment to the timely realisation of a Palestinian state. A source with knowledge of the meeting called it a "pact of faith". Effectively, it traded timely action on behalf of Palestinians who had and were still being subjected to atrocities for the promise of a Palestinian state. Such promises have been made numerous times before and repeatedly broken. Would Obama's administration, that had already indicated a disdain for human rights and international law by summarily rejecting the Goldstone Report, suddenly champion the principles that it had treated with such scorn? It would be unreasonable to think that the Palestinians did not understand that the best they could expect from a solution negotiated by the Obama administration at this time is a state surrounded by Israel that is less than 50 per cent of the territory that the same UN resolutions that created Israel had mandated for a Palestinian state. In the 60 years since this unfulfilled promise, Palestine has been systematically eroded away by Israel. This has been done by the stranglehold Israel has put on Gaza and on all the Palestinian people in an attempt to destroy them, at least in part. As a result, a rapidly increasing number of Palestinians are rejecting a two-state solution. Indeed international law unambiguously -- although many Palestinian diplomats claim unrealistically -- demands that the Palestinian people be able to exercise their right to self-determination throughout all of mandate Palestine. Even the 1948 borders, much less than the 1967 borders, are compromises that run contrary to what international law requires. Perhaps as a reflection in part of their own confusion about international law, as the Human Rights Council drew to a close last week the Palestine delegation further incensed its allies by going to them with a proposal that was obviously "made in America" to defer consideration of the Goldstone Report. Through trick, threat or treat, Palestinian representatives at the UN and their superiors had agreed to obstruct justice for their own people who had been victims of atrocities in favour of ... well, nobody really knew, nor was being told. On Friday 2 October, the Human Rights Council thus voted to delay consideration of the Goldstone Report until the March 2010 meeting of the Council. Palestinian diplomats have been quick to point out that the report can still be discussed, apparently mimicking the words of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who speaking unchallenged at a press conference in New York with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad sitting next to him said that all that can be done about Gaza is to talk about it. It is true that the report will come before the UN General Assembly irrespective of what transpired in Geneva. Because the Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly there can be no doubt that the General Assembly can discuss the report and even take action on it. As the Israelis have rejected action together with three permanent members of the Security Council, it is in fact General Assembly action that the report itself explicitly recommends. Moreover, the General Assembly has unambiguous authority to create an international judicial tribunal to deal with serious violations of international humanitarian, human rights, or criminal law. The Security Council has exercised the authority to create ad hoc judicial tribunals several times; the General Assembly's authority to do so is founded in even clearer international law. Because this involves serious violations of international humanitarian, human rights, and criminal law there is no need to defer to any action the Security Council might take on issues of peace and security. Indeed, the just-ended 63rd General Assembly established a precedent by dealing with the issue of Gaza and adopting a resolution on Gaza just after the Security Council had dealt with the case. There is also an unequivocal precedent for the current president of the General Assembly to put the matter before the world body. Like his predecessor, he can reopen the special session that has been convened on (and mainly off) since the late 1990s. He can do this by a simple invitation to member states. At such a session, a majority decision of the General Assembly is enough to create a judicial body to deal with the international crimes committed in Gaza. Whether the new Libyan president of the UN General Assembly is willing, or has the courage, to act on the allegations of atrocities in Gaza will be an important test of his qualities as the highest ranking official in the United Nations. To date he has brushed aside calls by NGOs to act, and his staff have displayed a discouraging propensity to avoid action if there might be technical arguments to suggest inaction. In this case, the legal arguments clearly suggest action. As an Arab representing Africa, as president of the UN General Assembly, Mr Ali Abdelsalam Treki will be burdened by the additional moral imperative of acting to promote justice for the Palestinian people. His failure to do so is likely to irreparably scar his presidency. Against this possible dismal outcome, the failure of the Human Rights Council can be turned into a victory for the UN General Assembly. For this to happen not only must the member states of the "G-192" show the courage of their convictions, but also the president of the General Assembly and diplomats representing the Palestinian people in New York. Arguments that political circumstances constraint action, like those made in Geneva, cannot but be understood as a willingness to submit to the will of oppressors, ensuring impunity for all manner of crimes, in the past and the future. This is not an option that the Palestinian people will accept. The writer is an international human rights lawyer and professor of law at An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine.
