UN to Vote on "Mild Resolution" From Court Rulings on Palestine
[Matt Nelson reportedly died on Sunday afternoon.]
There were protests on Monday around the UN with several activists arrested. As I’ve argued, increased protests and pressure there could be key, see piece below.
Today, I put out this news release from accuracy.org —
UN to Vote on "Mild Resolution" From Court Rulings on Palestine -- Interviews Available
As the UN General Assembly begins its annual session, which will include heads of state speaking there in the coming weeks, it is expected to vote on a resolution Wednesday (see video and coverage by AP) using the "Uniting for Peace" procedure to overcome the U.S. veto at the Security Council on Israel.
(Meanwhile, the ICC prosecutor Khan has called for an "urgent" arrest warrant for Netanyahu and said that "threat and harassment" won't dissuade him.)
FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle@illinois.edu
Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He successfully represented Bosnia at the International Court of Justice in its Genocide Convention case against Yugoslavia.
Boyle said today: "The proposed resolution is very mild. The International Court of Justice -- also called the World Court -- has issued two major groups of rulings on Palestine this year. In the Genocide Convention case brought by South Africa, it has said that Israel must stop its genocidal acts including its invasion of Rafah. The U.S. government has used its veto and threat of veto to prevent these rulings from being implemented at the Security Council." See IPA news release which featured Boyle from June 10, the day the UN Security Council passed the U.S. government resolution: "U.S. 'Ceasefire' a 'Ploy to Sabotage the Rule of Law.'"
Boyle added: "The ICJ has also issued a determination regarding the illegality of the 57-year occupation by Israel of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The proposed UN General Assembly resolution is a very moderate implementation of this ICJ opinion."
The current resolution has apparently already been watered down since last week. [See text comparison.]
Boyle said, the "UN General Assembly, using Uniting for Peace, with a two-thirds of voting members could suspend Israel from participation in its activities as the General Assembly did to the former criminal apartheid regime in South Africa and to the genocidal Yugoslavia;
“Set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel in order to prosecute its highest level civilian and military officials for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;
“Recommend an arms embargo and economic sanctions against Israel;
“Recommend UN members sever diplomatic relations with Israel.
"This current resolution doesn't do those things. It does say that Israel must withdraw from occupied territory in one year (the original draft said six months). And it talks of implementing 'sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against natural and legal persons engaged in the maintenance of Israel's unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in relation to settler violence.'
"In 1981, you had the General Assembly criticize the Western members of the Security Council for protecting South Africa as it occupied Namibia. It called on 'all states, in view of the threat to international peace and security posed by South Africa, to impose against that country comprehensive mandatory sanctions.'"
See ''Uniting for Peace' is Next Step in Invoking Genocide Convention Process to Protect Palestine" by Sam Husseini, which quotes UN whistleblower Craig Mokhiber: "You could have seen a resolution with teeth, with substance, resolution that included diplomatic, military, political, economic sanctions -- not the enforcement of those sanctions, but the call for those sanctions -- the deployment of a protection force, the establishment of a tribunal, the establishment of permanent mechanisms, as was the case within the United Nations during apartheid in South Africa."
See prior piece:
No comments:
Post a Comment