On December 14 I arrived at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel to carry out my UN role as Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories. I was leading a mission to visit the West Bank and Gaza to gather information for a report to the UN Human Rights Council on Israel’s compliance with human rights standards and international humanitarian law. Meetings had been scheduled for me on an hourly basis during the six days planned visit, starting with Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, on the following day.
I knew that there might be problems at the airport. Israel had strongly opposed my appointment a few months earlier, and its Foreign Ministry had issued a statement that it would bar my entry if I came to Israel in my capacity as a UN representative. At the same time, I would not have made the long journey from California, where I live, had I not been reasonably optimistic about my chances of getting in. After all, I had been to Israel a few months earlier in my private capacity to give a university lecture, being then careful to avoid any activity that overlapped with my UN role, and encountered no difficulties. Also, Israel was informed that I would lead the mission and given a copy of my itinerary by UN civil servants in Geneva. Despite this Israel went ahead and issued visas to the two people assisting me, and never hinted that I might be barred. The staff security person and an assistant both of whom work in the Swiss Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights were both admitted to Israel without difficulty.
To avoid an incident at the airport Israel could have either refused to grant visas to these UN civil servants, or communicated to the UN that I would not be allowed to enter, but neither step was taken. Given this, I believed that I would be able to do my UN job without interference from Israel. It turned out that I was badly mistaken. It seemed that Israel welcomed the incident, apparently wanting to teach me, and more significantly, the UN a lesson: there will be no cooperation with those who make strong criticisms of Israel’s occupation policy even if they formally represent the UN. This Israeli posture is unlawful as all members of the UN are legally obligated to facilitate the discharge of its official functions.
My experience was unpleasant and frustrating. After being turned away at the passport window I was led away to a holding room, and kept waiting for an hour or so before being taken to an official from the Ministry of the Interior. She looked somewhat confused when she summoned me to her office after another long wait, telling me immediately: “I am afraid that I cannot let you enter Israel.” “Why not?” “We have an order from the Foreign Ministry. You were informed of this.” “Never. I knew there was a press statement, but then when nothing was done to give it effect, I thought it would be okay for me to come.” “No, you are denied entry, and will be detained at the airport until you expelled on the next available plane.”
After this I was returned to the holding room to sit with a dozen or so other people with entry problems, mainly technical passport issues or persons apparently being harassed because of their Palestinian ethnicity. I waited in that room for yet another hour. At this point I was treated, not as a UN representative with an official mission, but somewhere between a common criminal and a terrorist suspect. I was subjected to an inch by inch body search, and endured the most meticulous luggage search I have ever witnessed, lasting a couple more hours. I was permanently separated from my two UN companions. I was then taken to the airport detention facility a mile or so away, required to leave my bags and cell phone downstairs and then taken upstairs to a locked tiny room that I was to share with five other detainees. The room smelled of urine and filth, and was a standing invitation to claustrophobia. I spent the next 15 hours or so confined, which amounted to a cram course on the miseries of prison life, including dirty sheets, inedible food, with bright lights until early evening and then total darkness. My detained companions were confined for seemingly trivial technical entry reasons, but several had tales of woe that brought to mind Kafka short stories about the petty cruelties of the law.
Of course, my disappointment about being denied entry and the harsh detention that followed were not worthy of notice, given the sorts of hardships that millions around the world daily endure, much less the plight of the Palestinians living under occupation. The importance of my experience is largely symbolic. I was an individual acting on behalf of the UN who was not even accused of doing anything wrong beyond expressing strong disapproval of the policies of a sovereign state. The deeper significance of the incident illustrates a broader Israeli approach that might be called ‘the politics of distraction,’ playing a mind game in which attention of the media and the world is shifted from the oppressive reality of the occupation of Palestinian territories to the person with audacity to report upon those conditions. In other words, instead of debating the truth or falsity of what is observed, the emphasis becomes whether the observer is biased or hostile.
Israel’s objections to my appointment as Special Rapporteur all along rested on the claim that I was biased, as evidenced by the allegedly odious criticisms that I had made in published writings relating to the occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel expressed these objections prior to my selection by the 47 governmental members of the UN Human Rights Council. In the debate preceding the vote Israel made its opposition to my selection clear, contending heatedly that certainly among the 184 candidates that had been proposed for the position there was certainly someone more qualified who could have been found.
My overriding goal during the many years of involvement with the Israel/Palestine conflict has been to support a just peace between the two peoples. To the extent that my Jewish identity is relevant, it has influenced me to seek justice for those who are oppressed, regardless of ethnicity or religion. My own outlook is shaped by a strong affirmation of the shared humanity of Jews and Palestinians. The whole culture of human rights rests on this premise of shared humanity that leads to equality of treatment under law.
On this basis I deny strongly that I am biased in my assessment of the Israeli occupation in terms of its practices and legal obligations. My commitment is to be truthful in reporting the facts, and responsible in interpreting the legal consequences that follow. It is the nature of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories that gives rise to sharp criticisms of Israel’s approach, most dramatically, of the total blockade of Gaza that involves the collective punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants, every man, woman, and child. This blockade has kept supplies of food, fuel, and medicines entering Gaza at bare survival levels. Recent studies report 46% of Gazan children suffer from acute anemia, and 80% live in abject poverty, with less than $1 a day of purchasing power. With the borders closed Gaza is a prison, but in some respects worse. At least a normal prison includes an administrative apparatus that accepts responsibility for feeding the prisoners, and providing for their health care. The situation is worse in other respects, as well. Israel feels itself free to use military force via air and helicopter attacks at times and places of its choosing within Gaza, keeping the entire population on edge and at risk, day and night. One detail of this oppressive occupation regime are verified reports of widespread child deafness caused by the sonic booms deliberately caused by intimidating overflights of Israeli military aircraft.
The blockade serves no legitimate Israeli function. It is allegedly imposed in retaliation for Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets that have been fired across the border aimed mainly at the town of Sderot, and occasionally at the bigger city of Ashkelon. These rockets are primitive, and have done little damage, but they do target civilians and cause understandable fear for Israelis potentially subject to these attacks. The launching of theses rockets on the Palestinian side of the Gaza border is unlawful and immoral as they are used as weapons of terror. Yet this in no way justifies Israeli indiscriminate and disproportionate measures being taken against the entire civilian society of Gaza. It also seems that the Israeli leadership feels that since the citizenry of Gaza voted for Hamas in free elections back in January 2006, it has been a reasonable reaction to blame and punish the whole population of Gaza to the extent of imposing this life-threatening and health-denying regime of occupation in the form of a siege.
My story is a tiny part of this unfolding narrative of massive suffering. At any moment the situation, bad as it is, could take a further turn for the worse. For several months there was virtually no crossborder violence, as both sides respected a ceasefire that had been arranged via Egyptian diplomacy, and Hamas kept the truce although Israel failed to ease the blockade as it had agreed to do. Beyond this Hamas offered to establish a long truce, even lasting up to ten years or longer, if Israel would agree to withdraw from all Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. It is significant that Israel failed even to acknowledge this Hamas diplomacy, although trustworthy citizens who visited Gaza were impressed by the seriousness of these diplomatic initiatives being put forward by Hamas.
Not only was there no exploration of whether some sort of stability could be achieved, but Israel actually broke the truce a couple of weeks ago by attacking and killing several alleged militants within Gaza, inducing Hamas forces to launch some rockets in response, leading to a dangerous renewal of violence on both sides. The truce period has now expired and there are strong rumors that Israel is considering plans a major military incursion in Gaza, which could intensify greatly an already unfolding humanitarian catastrophe resulting from the blockade. Such a sequence of events if it causes major death and destruction will immediately challenge the new Obama presidency to take a stand by demonstrating that it is prepared to stand up to Israel to protect the vulnerable civilian population of Gaza. At this point, there is little reason to be hopeful that the more basic United States policy toward the Israel/Palestine conflict will change considering that all of the major Obama appointments in the foreign policy area are strong Israeli supporters, but there is some chance that Washington will use its leverage, at least behind the scenes, to discourage any major escalation of violence in Gaza.
The United Nations, as well as the United States, is challenged by these deteriorating conditions to exhibit greater concern and responsibility for the protection of civilians in Gaza. Its own role as the major provider of food for the people of Gaza has been severely constrained by the stiffening of the blockade in recent weeks. Beyond this, the Palestinian territories as part of historic Palestine, were from the earliest days of the United Nations seen as a special responsibility of the world community. It was the UN that split the British controlled Palestinian mandate into two parts back in 1947, a ‘solution’ tragically rejected at the time by the Arab world. In the last several years, the UN Security Council has endorsed the idea of humanitarian intervention under the rubric of ‘a responsibility to protect’ (also known as R2P), and no world circumstance combines the misery and vulnerability of the people more urgently than does the situation of the people of Gaza living under occupation since 1967. Surely the present emergency circumstances present a compelling case for the application of this protective response under UN auspices. If this does not happen it will again demonstrate to the people of the world, especially those in the Middle East, that geopolitics trumps international law and humanitarian concerns, and leaves those victimized with few options. Under these conditions, it should not surprise us that extremist methods and reliance on violence wins many adherents.
Senast ändrad: 2009-01-06
• USA ut ur IRAK – villkorslöst och omedelbart!
• Ett fritt och självständigt Irak!
• Stöd motstånds- kampen!
• Inget svenskt stöd till ockupationen!
• An unconditional and immediate US withdrawal from Iraq!