The debate over the wall, which was destroying the life and future of the Palestinian people and making the two-State solution impossible, was over, the Permanent Observer for Palestine declared today at a Headquarters press conference, following the issuance Friday of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the barrier violated international law and should be dismantled.
Informing correspondents of the Arab Group’s decision to request the resumption of the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly for Friday, he said, “We are not going to the General Assembly to debate the wall.” The Court had put an end to that debate by issuing a clear ruling. The debate now was about implementation of the legal obligations, as determined by the Court.
He said the opinion had the potential of moving the Middle East, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to a new level, based on the rule of law, dialogue and negotiations towards the establishment of a comprehensive peace based on the two-State solution, along pre-1967 borders. The opinion was an opportunity not only for the Palestinians, but also for the Israeli side, to get rid of that “monstrous project” destroying the future of the Middle East.
Stressing that the Court -- the highest judicial organ of the United Nations -- had rendered a very strong, clear and comprehensive advisory opinion by a very broad majority of judges, he said that its jurisdiction had been unanimously upheld. The conclusion that there was no compelling reason for it not to give the advisory opinion was reached by 14 to 1. All of the conclusions in the operative part of the opinion had also been 14 to 1, with the exception of the legal obligations of States, which had been 13 to 1.
Even the one judge who had voted against the conclusions did not submit a dissenting opinion; he only put forth a declaration, which basically argued that there was not enough information available. His declaration contained a lot of positive elements, including, for instance, the fact that the Israeli settlements violated article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that the Palestinians had a right to self-determination. Generally, he did not see any really negative position by any of the ICJ judges, for which he was grateful.
Many media organizations had casually referred to the advisory opinion as non-binding, he noted. That was not accurate. The Court had spoken of the legal obligations of Israel, the occupying Power, namely, that Israel had the legal obligation to cease construction of the wall and dismantle the existing parts. It also had the legal obligation to make reparation for the damage inflicted on Palestinians. The Court had also spoken of the legal obligations of States and high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. That was not optional under international law. Law-abiding nations should respect the advisory opinion and comply with their legal obligations.
He said that no one could sum up that opinion casually as non-binding, as if it had made some recommendations. The advisory opinion had the strength of law and was reflective of applicable international law. Moreover, the Court had pronounced itself clearly on the legal obligations of the occupying Power, as well as other States. He would go first to the General Assembly, as the requesting organ. A draft resolution would be presented for consideration and action.
The main line of the text would be to acknowledge, with appreciation, receipt of the advisory opinion and to make clear its importance with regard to the rule of law and international relations. The operative part would have the Assembly clearly accept the opinion. The draft would also demand compliance by both the occupying Power, as well as by States. It would also deal with the obligations of the high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and request or invite Switzerland, as that treaty’s depositary, to hold meetings of the high contracting parties. It would also ask the Secretariat to do some work with regard to assessing the damage done by the construction of the wall. The resolution would also have the Assembly decide to reconvene, with the aim of taking additional measures to end the current illegal situation, in the words of the Court.
Of course, he added, there was the possibility of non-compliance, but he was taking a responsible, slow, but steady, approach. The Assembly action was a first step aimed at underscoring the importance of the matter and giving a chance for different dynamics to play towards achieving a different Israeli action. At a later stage, the Arab Group would go to the Security Council.
On the latter point, he said that regardless of some statements made here and there, there was no extraneous element governing when the Group would go to the Council. The timing would depend on developments on the ground. There was also always the option of going back to the General Assembly. In addition, negotiations would be conducted with all interested Member States, through which he hoped to achieve very broad support -- close to unanimity – for the draft resolution. It was important to transform the content of the advisory opinion into a clear political position, and one of a practical nature.
One correspondent said that, even if the “GA move” was successful, the Group would end up with a non-binding resolution trying to enforce a non-binding decision. Why not go directly to the Security Council, where he could get a binding resolution? he asked. He also wanted to know, despite Mr. Al-Kidwa’s remarks, whether the United States elections were keeping him from the Security Council.
Obviously, Mr. Al-Kidwa replied, he had failed to convince the correspondent that the advisory opinion was not non-binding. The Assembly would be convened in a tenth emergency special session. That was not “just another GA”, but a procedure whereby the Assembly acted after failure of the Security Council to do so in the maintenance of international peace and security. The Assembly would uphold the collective responsibility of States in that regard.
“The bottom line is this –- if Israel does not comply with its obligations as determined by the advisory opinion, then it would become officially, judicially, an outlaw”, he said. Why Israel would even contemplate such a possibility, he did not know. Unfortunately, Israel had the illegal protection of the United States. That protection was the reason why Israel had not complied with the previous 28 Security Council resolutions on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
Whether he went to the Council or sought an advisory opinion of the ICJ, the fact remained that Israel could violate any relevant rules of international law and Security Council or General Assembly resolution, and maybe even any advisory opinion, by relying on that “automatic protection” of the United States. The hope now was that both would look at the latest development differently. The United States had an interest in dealing with the advisory opinion in a respectable way, at least because of the current situation in the region and the American “projects” there. “You can’t dismiss international law, especially in light of the bitter experience of the last six months or so”, he added.
He reiterated that he was going to the General Assembly first because that was the requesting organ and he wanted to achieve as broad international consensus as possible on acceptance of the advisory opinion and on the call for compliance with the legal obligations. At a later stage, without regard to the United States election, he would go to the Security Council, motivated basically by his evaluation of develops on the ground.
Asked if he would seek sanctions when he went to the Council, he said he had some ideas about how to achieve implementation of the Court’s determination, in terms of possible additional measures by either the Council or the Assembly, or both. In that regard, the Court had spoken clearly about the United Nations’ responsibility, including both bodies. So, he had some ideas and those were not necessarily a sanctions regime against Israel, but practical measures, especially against the wall’s construction and settlement activities. He would not get into the details now because he was not there yet. Now, the stage was being set for further actions at a later time.
Concerning whether he fully anticipated a United States’ veto in the Council, he said he had heard a lot of noise about that from an Israeli official, but not from the United States. He could not see the United States taking the Court’s opinion lightly to the point of assuring the Israeli side of a veto. Generally, the lack of professionalism on the Israeli side, namely, the present Government, was almost scandalous, he added.
Responding to what had been meant by the advisory opinion being a chance for “different dynamics” in Israel, he said that point had referred to the legal obligations of States, including through bilateral contacts. He hoped that many States would put serious pressure on the Israeli side to reconsider, and he hoped that the United States would deal with the advisory opinion in a serious way. For his part, he would continue struggling on all fronts against the wall, including through popular demonstration.
He said he remained hopeful, despite the hysterical initial reactions of some Israeli quarters. His advice to some of them was to be careful, lest those be found in contempt of court. While he regretted some of those initial reactions, he had welcomed the more responsible ones, such as the European Union’s and the Secretary-General’s statements.
To the points made by the Israelis that the wall had forestalled suicide bombing attacks in the past four months and that the barrier was temporary and would be torn down on the day of peace, he said that, more than 30 years ago, successive Israeli Governments had tried to convince the world that they were establishing settlements as a security measures. Now everyone knew that they were illegal and were actually an attempt to colonize. The wall was, more or less, the same – an attempt to illegally annex important parts of the West Bank.
He added that the wall had already squeezed tens of thousands of Palestinians into an enclave, completely walling them in. If completed, the wall would squeeze the whole Palestinian population into two or three big enclaves within which there were several additional smaller ones. That was much worse than apartheid. That was a combination of many things, including the establishment of an apartheid system and the prevention of the emergence of a real PalestinianState. The wall had not been about security; Israel could have built a wall or barrier on its own territory along the armistice line.
Many countries would be heartened by the advisory opinion, he said in response to another question. In terms of the European Union, its Member States had co-sponsored a resolution declaring the wall in contradiction to international law and demanding the cessation of its construction and removal of existing parts. When it came to the request for an advisory opinion, the Union had chosen to abstain. During the Court’s proceedings, no State had come before it to defend the wall. Divergent views concerned how much relevance each country placed on the work of the Court and the advisory opinion to the conflict. He expected that the European Union would again be united in its positive position vis-à-vis the advisory opinion.
My Rights, Our Power: A Joint Campaign Launched in Palestine to Raise Awareness on Women’s Fundamental Human Rights
Date posted: March 09, 2019
By UN Women
1_March 2019, Ramallah – On the occasion of the International Women’s Day (8 March), a week-long joint campaign “My Rights, Our Power” was launched today in Palestine to raise awareness on women’s fundamental human rights. The joint effort, with participation from over 30 national and international partners from civil society organizations, media outlets, and international development agencies, targets youth, women, and men in various geographic areas in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza to promote women’s human rights in Palestine.
The campaign comes at a crucial moment when the anticipated adoption of the Family Protection Bill is at a standstill, raising concerns among national and international stakeholders about the consequences of such delay on safeguarding women’s fundamental human rights in Palestine. According to the Palestine report of the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), nearly one in five Palestinian men (17 percent) surveyed said they had perpetrated act of physical intimate partner violence against female partners, while 21 per cent of women surveyed reported having experienced such violence.
“Family violence, usually committed by a family member who has social or economic power over others in the family, causes enormous pain and suffering to all members of the family, especially the women and children,” said a spokesperson from civil society, which has vigorously initiated the development of the Family Protection Bill (FPB), and has strongly pushed its adoption since 2004.
“The violation of women’s human rights manifests in various levels and should be also understood from economic, cultural, and social aspects,” the spokesperson added, highlighting the lack of opportunities and freedom of choice, as well as limited access to justice and services that women in Palestine still experience.
The joint campaign aims to raise awareness of the general public, especially youth, women, and men on women’s fundamental rights in line with international standards and embedded in the Family Protection Bill draft endorsed by the previous Cabinet at the end of December 2018. Five key messages, addressing women’s right to a life free of violence, right to achieve justice and seek help in case of violation of such life, as well as the right to equal opportunities and right to make one’s own choices, will be distributed through various channels such as radio, social media, helpline (121), outreach activities, and on-site events. The closing event of the joint campaign will take place on 8 March in Jerusalem and will celebrate women’s achievements using TED-style talks, followed by art performances.
“My Rights, Our Power” joint campaign is part of the global International Women’s Day 2019 campaign under the theme of “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change”. The theme focuses on innovative ways in which we can advance gender equality and the empowerment of women, particularly in the areas of social protection systems, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure, echoing the theme of the 63rd session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 63) taking place in New York on 11-22 March 2019.
The participating organizations of the “My Rights, Our Power” are (in alphabetical order): 17 Palestinian women’s organizations represented by Al-Muntada (coalition), British Consulate-General, Business Women Forum, CARE International, Consulate General of Sweden, Consulate General of Belgium, EUPOL COPPS, EU Representative Office, FAO, General Union of Palestinian Women, Government of Japan, CowaterSogema/GROW Project, International Labour Organization, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, Ma’an TV, MIFTAH, Netherlands Representative Office, Nisaa FM, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development, Palestinian Family Planning and Protection Association, Representative Office of Canada, Representative Office of Denmark, SAWA, Sawasya II, Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, Sports for Life, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Representative Office of Norway, UNDP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNOPS, UN Women, Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, Women’s Studies Center.
For more information, please contact Eunjin Jeong at UN Women via eunjin.jeong@unwomen.org or 059 2321 308, Majd Beltaji at UNESCO via m.beltaji@unesco.org or 059 4501 506.
