Abir Dandis, the mother of the two girls who were murdered in the Negev town of Al-Fura’a last week, couldn't find a police officer to listen to her warnings, neither in Arad nor in Ma’ale Adumim. Both police stations operate in areas where Israel wants to gather the Bedouin into permanent communities, against their will, in order to clear more land for Jewish communities. The dismissive treatment Dandis received shows how the Bedouin are considered simply to be lawbreakers by their very nature. But as a resident of the West Bank asking for help for her daughters, whose father was Israeli, Dandis faced the legal-bureaucratic maze created by the Oslo Accords.

The Palestinian police is not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians. It must hand suspects over to the Israel Police. The Palestinian police complain that in cases of Israelis suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian residents, the Israel Police tend not to investigate or prosecute them.

In addition, the town of Al-Azaria, where Dandis lives, is in Area B, under Palestinian civilian authority and Israeli security authority. According to the testimony of Palestinian residents, neither the IDF nor the Israel Police has any interest in internal Palestinian crime even though they have both the authority and the obligation to act in Area B.

The Palestinian police are limited in what it can do in Area B. Bringing in reinforcements or carrying weapons in emergency situations requires coordination with, and obtaining permission from, the IDF. If Dandis fears that the man who murdered her daughters is going to attack her as well, she has plenty of reason to fear that she will not receive appropriate, immediate police protection from either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

Dandis told Jack Khoury of Haaretz that the Ma’ale Adumim police referred her to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination and Liaison Committee. Theoretically, this committee (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry) is the logical place to go for such matters. Its parallel agency in Israel is the Civilian Liaison Committee (which is part of the Coordination and Liaison Administration - a part of the Civil Administration under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories).

In their meetings, they are supposed to discuss matters such as settlers’ complaints about the high volume of the loudspeakers at mosques or Palestinians’ complaints about attacks by settlers. But the Palestinians see the Liaison Committee as a place to submit requests for permission to travel to Israel, and get the impression that its clerks do not have much power when faced with their Israeli counterparts. In any case, the coordination process is cumbersome and long.

The Palestinian police has a family welfare unit, and activists in Palestinian women’s organizations say that in recent years, its performance has improved. But, as stated, it has no authority over Israeli civilians and residents. Several non-governmental women’s groups also operate in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and women in similar situations approach them for help. The manager of one such organization told Haaretz that Dandis also fell victim to this confusing duplication of procedures and laws. Had Dandis approached her, she said, she would have referred her to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which has expertise in navigating Israel’s laws and authorities.

John Kerry revealed his long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East on Sunday, hinging on a $4bn (£2.6bn) investment in the Palestinian private sector.

The US secretary of state, speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea, told an audience including Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that an independent Palestinian economy is essential to achieving a sustainable peace.

Speaking under the conference banner "Breaking the Impasse", Kerry announced a plan that he promised would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo accords, more than 20 years ago.

Tony Blair is to lead a group of private sector leaders in devising a plan to release the Palestinian economy from its dependence on international donors. The initial findings of Blair's taskforce, Kerry boasted, were "stunning", predicting a 50% increase in Palestinian GDP over three years, a cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates and almost double the Palestinian median wage. Currently, 40% of the Palestinian economy is supplied by donor aid.

Kerry assured Abbas that the economic plan was not a substitute for a political solution, which remains the US's "top priority".

Peres, who had taken the stage just minutes before, also issued a personal plea to his Palestinian counterpart to return to the negotiations.

"Let me say to my dear friend President Abbas," Peres said, "Should we really dance around the table? Lets sit together. You'll be surprised how much can be achieved in open, direct and organised meetings."

Thick locks hug the front gates of shuttered shops, now covered in graffiti and dust from lack of use. Only a handful of customers pass along the dimly lit road, sometimes stopping to check the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, or ordering meat in near-empty butcher shops.

“All the shops are closed. I’m the only one open. This used to be the best place,” said 64-year-old Mustafa Sunocret, selling vegetables out of a small storefront in the marketplace near his family’s home in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Amidst the brightly coloured scarves, clothes and carpets, ceramic pottery and religious souvenirs filling the shops of Jerusalem’s historic Old City, Palestinian merchants are struggling to keep their businesses alive.

Faced with worsening health problems, Sunocret told IPS that he cannot work outside of the Old City, even as the cost of maintaining his shop, with high electricity, water and municipal tax bills to pay, weighs on him.

“I only have this shop,” he said. “There is no other work. I’m tired.”

Abed Ajloni, the owner of an antiques shop in the Old City, owes the Jerusalem municipality 250,000 Israeli shekels (68,300 U.S. dollars) in taxes. He told IPS that almost every day, the city’s tax collectors come into the Old City, accompanied by Israeli police and soldiers, to pressure people there to pay.

“It feels like they’re coming again to occupy the city, with the soldiers and police,” Ajloni, who has owned the same shop for 35 years, told IPS. “But where can I go? What can I do? All my life I was in this place.”

He added, “Does Jerusalem belong to us, or to someone else? Who’s responsible for Jerusalem? Who?”

Illegal annexation

Israel occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in 1967. In July 1980, it passed a law stating that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. But Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and subsequent application of Israeli laws over the entire city remain unrecognised by the international community.

Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory – along with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights – and Palestinian residents of the city are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Jerusalem has historically been the economic, political and cultural centre of life for the entire Palestinian population. But after decades languishing under destructive Israeli policies meant to isolate the city from the rest of the Occupied Territories and a lack of municipal services and investment, East Jerusalem has slipped into a state of poverty and neglect.

“After some 45 years of occupation, Arab Jerusalemites suffer from political and cultural schizophrenia, simultaneously connected with and isolated from their two hinterlands: Ramallah and the West Bank to their east, West Jerusalem and Israel to the west,” the International Crisis Group recently wrote.

Israeli restrictions on planning and building, home demolitions, lack of investment in education and jobs, construction of an eight-foot-high separation barrier between and around Palestinian neighbourhoods and the creation of a permit system to enter Jerusalem have all contributed to the city’s isolation.

Formal Palestinian political groups have also been banned from the city, and between 2001-2009, Israel closed an estimated 26 organisations, including the former Palestinian Liberation Organisation headquarters in Jerusalem, the Orient House and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce.

Extreme poverty

Israel’s policies have also led to higher prices for basic goods and services and forced many Palestinian business owners to close shop and move to Ramallah or other Palestinian neighbourhoods on the other side of the wall. Many Palestinian Jerusalemites also prefer to do their shopping in the West Bank, or in West Jerusalem, where prices are lower.

While Palestinians constitute 39 percent of the city’s population today, almost 80 percent of East Jerusalem residents, including 85 percent of children, live below the poverty line.

“How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t control your resources? How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t have any control of your borders?” said Zakaria Odeh, director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, of “this kind of fragmentation, checkpoints, closure”.

“Without freedom of movement of goods and human beings, how could you develop an economy?” he asked.

“You can’t talk about independent economy in Jerusalem or the West Bank or in all of Palestine without a political solution. We don’t have a Palestinian economy; we have economic activities. That’s all we have,” Odeh told IPS.

Israel’s separation barrier alone, according to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), has caused a direct loss of over one billion dollars to Palestinians in Jerusalem, and continues to incur 200 million dollars per year in lost opportunities.

Israel’s severing and control over the Jerusalem-Jericho road – the historical trade route that connected Jerusalem to the rest of the West Bank and Middle East – has also contributed to the city’s economic downturn.

Separation of Jerusalem from West Bank

Before the First Intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) began in the late 1980s, East Jerusalem contributed approximately 14 to 15 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). By 2000, that number had dropped to less than eight percent; in 2010, the East Jerusalem economy, compared to the rest of the OPT, was estimated at only seven percent.

“Economic separation resulted in the contraction in the relative size of the East Jerusalem economy, its detachment from the remaining OPT and the gradual redirection of East Jerusalem employment towards the Israeli labour market,” the U.N. report found.

Decades ago, Israel adopted a policy to maintain a so-called “demographic balance” in Jerusalem and attempt to limit Palestinian residents of the city to 26.5 percent or less of the total population.

To maintain this composition, Israel built numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements inside and in a ring around Jerusalem and changed the municipal boundaries to encompass Jewish neighbourhoods while excluding Palestinian ones.

It is now estimated that 90,000 Palestinians holding Jerusalem residency rights live on the other side of the separation barrier and must cross through Israeli checkpoints in order to reach Jerusalem for school, medical treatment, work, and other services.

“Israel is using all kinds of tools to push the Palestinians to leave; sometimes they are visible, and sometimes invisible tools,” explained Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER).

Al-Hammouri told IPS that at least 25 percent of the 1,000 Palestinian shops in the Old City were closed in recent years as a result of high municipal taxes and a lack of customers. “Taxation is an invisible tool…as dangerous as revoking ID cards and demolishing houses,” he said. “Israel will use this as pressure and as a tool in the future to confiscate these shops and properties.”

UNITED NATIONS -- Following is the full text of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 on the Israel-Hezbollah war:
"The Security Council,

"PP1. Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006), 1680 (2006) and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its president on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June, 2000, of 19 October, 2004, of 4 May 2005, of 23 January 2006 and of 30 July 2006;

"PP2. Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons;

"PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;

"PP4: Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel;

"PP5. Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese prime minister and the commitment of the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon;

"PP6. Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest;

"PP7. Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area;

"PP8. Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in south Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties;

"PP9. Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution to the conflict;

"PP10. Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

"OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

"OP2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;

"OP3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;

"OP4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

"OP5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;

"OP6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbors, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

"OP7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;

"OP8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

• full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
• security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;
• full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;
• no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;
• no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;
• provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

"OP9. Invites the secretary general to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;

"OP10. Requests the secretary general to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security Council those proposals within 30 days;

"OP11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):

1. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
2. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;
3. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
4. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
5. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
6. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;

"OP12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;

"OP13. Requests the secretary general urgently to put in place measures to ensure UNIFIL is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges member states to consider making appropriate contributions to UNIFIL and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to UNIFIL in the past;

"OP14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the government of Lebanon at its request;

"OP15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft;

1. the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and;
2. the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;

"OP16. Decides to extend the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 August 2007, and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

"OP17. Requests the secretary general to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;

"OP18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

"OP19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

The text of a UN Security Council draft resolution aimed at ending the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) and 1680 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19

October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17) of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),

Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,

Emphasising the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

2. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

3. Also reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;

4. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours for verifiably and purely civilian purposes, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

5. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty and authority;

6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:
   • strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;

   • full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

   • delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Chebaa farms area;

   • security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces and of UN mandated international forces deployed in this area;

   • full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;

   • deployment of an international force in Lebanon, consistent with paragraph 10 below;

   • establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

   • elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;

   • provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

7. Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above;

8. Requests the Secretary General to develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Chebaa farms, and to present those proposals to the Security Council within thirty days;

9. Calls on all parties to cooperate during this period with the Security Council and to refrain from any action contrary to paragraph 1 above that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, or the safe return of displaced persons, and requests the Secretary General to keep the Council informed in this regard;

10. Expresses its intention, upon confirmation to the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel have agreed in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval, to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a UN mandated international force to support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

11. Requests UNIFIL, upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and to extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the safe return of displaced persons;

12. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to ensure arms or related materiel are not imported into Lebanon without its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;

13. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and to provide any relevant information in light of the Councils intention to adopt, consistent with paragraph 10 above, a further resolution;

14. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Parties Cannot Succeed if Left to Themselves, He Says, Citing Drift, Foreboding, Pessimism about Prospects for Peace

SC/8222 Security Council 5060th Meeting (AM)

Calling for a more vigorous international engagement in the Middle East as an indispensable ingredient in ending the violence and bringing fresh hope for peace, Kieran Prendergast, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, told the Security Council this morning that he had painfully little that was positive to report on the situation and much that was negative.

Briefing the Council on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, he said it had been heard from many quarters that the time had come for a renewed peace effort, but that the parties to the conflict could not succeed if left to themselves. Violence, not negotiation, continued to be the all-too-frequent mode of communication, and there was a palpable sense of drift and foreboding. That stemmed from an equally pervasive sense of pessimism about the prospects for peace, coupled with frustration because the basis of a settlement –- the two-State solution -– was well established and enjoyed strong support among both the Israeli and Palestinian publics.

Describing the statistics as staggering, he said that since his last briefing to the Council, just over a month ago, 206 Palestinians and 13 Israelis had been killed, and approximately 1,033 Palestinians and 62 Israelis injured. The number of Palestinians killed since September 2000 was now 3,839, and that of Israelis totalled 979. An estimated 36,433 Palestinians and 6,297 Israelis had been injured since the eruption of the intifada.

Even to speak in terms of a peace process seemed to put one at a distance from present reality, he said. Yet the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians could be settled only through negotiations between the parties, in the continued absence of which the Road Map offered the only way forward. Its implementation would help both parties to find their way back to the negotiating table.

However, he said, the Israeli Government had still not implemented its obligation to dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001 and to impose a settlement freeze, including natural growth, in full consistency with the Road Map and the Mitchell Report. He called on Israel to meet its obligations under international law and the Road Map.

For its part, he said, the Palestinian Authority needed to take genuine, determined and sustained action to ensure that an empowered Prime Minister and cabinet could fulfil Palestinian obligations under the Road Map, particularly in regard to ending violence and terrorism and reforming its security forces. He reiterated the call on President Yasser Arafat to move forward with the much-needed reforms.

The meeting began at 10:15 a.m. and adjourned at 10:38 a.m.

Detailed Briefing Summary

Kieran Prendergast, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, said it was painful to have to say yet again that there had been little positive and much that was negative to report to the Council this month. Violence, not negotiation, continued to be the all-too-frequent mode of communication in the Middle East. There was a palpable sense of drift and foreboding; in the case of the occupied Palestinian territory, of drift towards chaos. Neither side was fulfilling its obligations under the Road Map.

He said that the major Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip had resulted in the deaths of large numbers of Palestinians, including civilians and children. The Secretary-General had expressed his deep concern over those deaths and had reminded Israel that it must act in keeping with its obligations under international humanitarian law. The terrorist attacks at Taba, Egypt, on the evening of 7 October had been breaches of the peace in a place hitherto known as a haven for coexistence and tourism. The casualties reflected the diversity of nationalities mingling at Taba –- at least 13 Israelis, six Egyptians, and six Russian and Italian tourists killed in the triple bombing.

Since his last briefing to the Council just over a month ago, he noted, 206 Palestinians and 13 Israelis had been killed, and approximately 1,033 Palestinians and 62 Israelis injured. The number of Palestinians killed since September 2000 was now 3,839. A total of 979 Israelis had been killed over the same period. An estimated 36,433 Palestinians and 6,297 Israelis had been injured since the eruption of the intifada. Those staggering statistics ought to give everyone food for thought. Was there not a better way? he asked.

Violence in and around the Gaza Strip had escalated sharply during the reporting period, he said. On 29 September, Qassam rockets fired from Gaza at the town of Sderot inside Israel had killed two children aged two and four. Throughout the past month, Palestinian militants had continued to fire Qassam rockets at Sderot, causing minor injuries, as well as damage to homes and infrastructure. The Palestinian Authority must make all efforts to stop such attacks against Israeli civilians. In that context, on 30 September, Israel had launched a major military operation in the northern Gaza Strip.

Recalling that a large contingent of Israeli troops had entered Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoun, and the Jabaliya refugee camp, he said that on 30 September alone, at least 35 Palestinians had been killed. Seventy-two Palestinians, ranging in age from 10 to 60, had been wounded by gunfire in the Jabaliya camp that day, according to hospital officials. By 15 October, when Israeli troops started redeploying, 135 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza, 114 of them in the northern part of the Strip. Some 512 Palestinians had been injured, 431 of them in northern Gaza. During the operation, on average, eight Palestinians were killed every day and 30 injured. Many of the victims had been civilians, a number of them children –- at least 34 children had been reported dead by 15 October.

He said that approximately 170 children aged 18 or under had been injured. On 5 October, a 13-year-old girl had died, close to her school, hit by 20 bullets. On 12 October, an 11-year-old Palestinian girl had been shot and mortally injured in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), in an incident reminiscent of last month's events when a 10-year-old girl had been shot in an UNRWA school classroom, also dying later from her injuries. He reiterated his call on the Government of Israel to respect its legal obligations to ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians and to refrain from the disproportionate use of force.

He said he also continued to be gravely concerned at the extensive destruction of civilian property, infrastructure and agricultural land in the northern Gaza Strip during the operation. Such destruction raised, yet again, concerns about collective punishment and helped to fuel the bloodshed. Israel had carried out a number of targeted assassinations over the past month, and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem estimated that even before those latest extrajudicial killings, more than 150 militants had been killed in targeted assassinations by Israel since September 2000. More than 100 bystanders had been killed in such strikes. He repeated his call on the Government of Israel to halt immediately the illegal practice of extrajudicial killings and to refrain from such use of force in densely populated areas, where there was a high risk of so-called collateral damage.

At the same time, he urged the Palestinian Authority to take decisive steps to quell the terror emanating from territory under its control. On 22 September, two Israeli border policemen had been killed and some 15 Israelis wounded when an 18-year-old suicide bomber detonated her explosives at a busy stop in northern Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority must bring to justice those implicated in terrorist attacks and fulfil its obligations under the Road Map, as well as under international law, to do its utmost to prevent such attacks. Over the past month, there had been further violence and bloodshed in the West Bank, as well. Of particular concern had been the growing number of violent acts committed by Israeli settlers. He called on the Israeli Government to exert its legal authority over Israeli settlers and bring to justice those who committed crimes against Palestinians and civilians from third countries.

United Nations agencies continued to be severely affected in their operations by Israeli restrictions on movement, he said. During the reporting period, UNRWA had been forced to suspend many of its normal operations, including the resumption of much-needed emergency food aid in the Gaza Strip. With few exceptions, since 21 September, Israeli forces had denied United Nations personnel secure and unimpeded access into Gaza, hindering the effective delivery of humanitarian aid. He reiterated his call on the Israeli Government to guarantee United Nations personnel freedom of movement and to ensure unrestricted access and free movement of humanitarian goods and personnel into and throughout the Gaza Strip.

Noting that Palestinian civilians suffered most under the movement restrictions, he said that the full closure imposed by the Israeli authorities on the West Bank and Gaza Strip on 8 September for the Jewish high holidays remained in effect today, with no Palestinian movement at all between the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel. In addition, Palestinian men between 16 and 35 years of age continued to be forbidden to use the Rafah terminal to Egypt –- the only passage for Gazans needing to travel outside the Gaza Strip -– even if they had medical documentation referring them for necessary treatment abroad.

He said that the Palestinian economy remained in tatters, and that since its revitalization was crucial for the future, that remained a primary concern of the donor community, which was planning to meet later this year to discuss how best to support that economy. Movement restrictions had increased substantially during 2004, and unemployment remained high both in Gaza and the West Bank. Poverty was predicted to rise further, while food security, health standards, quality of water and sanitation and education standards had all deteriorated.

Israel continued its policies of demolishing houses, with 166 homes destroyed since the last briefing, and of confiscating and/or levelling Palestinian land for the construction of the barrier, he said. That construction had continued, especially around Jerusalem. He reiterated his call on Israel to abide by its legal obligations as set forth in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and General Assembly resolution ES-10/15, which had acknowledged the opinion and demanded that Israel comply with its legal obligations.

He said that the Secretary-General would, within the week, send to the Assembly President a letter outlining the structure and planned activities of the register of damages caused by the construction of the barrier, as called for in resolution ES-10/15. His aim would be to establish, as soon as possible, a body that would be able to examine requests and eligibility for registration, as well as to verify the facts and extent of damage and of the causal link between the construction of the barrier and the damage sustained.

Even to speak in terms of a peace process seemed to put one at a distance from present reality, he said. Yet, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians could be settled only through negotiations between the parties. In the continued absence of such negotiations, the Road Map offered the only way forward. Implementation of the Road Map would help both parties to find their way back to the negotiating table at long last.

"Here too I can offer no comfort to the Council", he said. The Israeli Government had still not implemented its obligation to dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001 and to impose a settlement freeze, including natural growth, in full consistency with the Road Map and the Mitchell Report. That lack of action was a cause for concern. During 2002 and 2003, West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements received at least twice as much financial aid from the Israeli Interior Ministry as did other Jewish communities. His concerns that the Government's lack of action to freeze settlements were intensified by reports that the first settlement outpost in the Gaza Strip had been recently established, and that the number of new apartments sold in the West Bank and Gaza Strip had risen by more than 20 per cent in the first seven months of 2004, compared to the same period during 2003. He called on Israel to meet her obligations under international law and the Road Map.

For its part, the Palestinian Authority needed to take genuine, determined and sustained action to ensure that an empowered Prime Minister and cabinet could fulfil Palestinian obligations under the Road Map, in particular as regards an end to violence and terrorism and the reform of security forces. Internal unrest continued in the occupied Palestinian territory. On 12 October, Military Intelligence Chief Moussa Arafat had escaped unharmed from a car bombing against his convoy in Gaza. On 18 October, six security officials had been injured. The growing number of incidents indicated that militants were increasingly bold in challenging the Palestinian Authority.

Reiterating the call on President Arafat to move forward on the implementation of much-needed reforms, he said reform was needed not only in the security services, but also in other fields where reform legislation was awaiting approval by the President. In that context, he continued to support the steps to prepare for Palestinian elections. The voter registration effort had recently ended, after having been extended due to low voter turnout and Israeli military operations. By 13 October, a total of some 64.7 per cent of eligible voters in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not including East Jerusalem, had registered.

Regrettably, Israeli movement restrictions had prevented the Central Election Commission from bringing the completed registration rolls from Gaza to its headquarters in the West Bank safely and without interference, he said. He urged Israel and the Palestinian Authority to cooperate towards the goal of conducting a free and credible electoral process.

At the convening of the Knesset for its winter session, Prime Minister Sharon had stated that Israel adhered to its support of the Road Map. He hoped that that unequivocal statement and not earlier reported remarks with very different connotations represented Israeli policy. Mr. Sharon's withdrawal initiative was now scheduled to enter the legislative process in the Knesset on 25 October, with the first reading of the related bill on the compensation package of evacuated settlers to follow on 3 November.

The manner and context in which the Israeli pullout from Gaza and the northern West Bank took place were extremely important, he said. Withdrawal from Gaza should be full and complete and should be undertaken in a matter consistent with the Road Map. If those requirements were met, withdrawal could be a useful step towards an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967, by means of direct negotiations between the parties leading to the goal of two States, Israel and a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That remained the goal. He urged the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to coordinate closely on preparation and implementation of the withdrawal initiative.

Turning to the situation in southern Lebanon, he said a relative calm had prevailed along the Blue Line for just over three months. The only serious violations during the period had come in the form of Israeli overflights. He called on the Government of Israel to cease violations of the Blue Line.

Despite the overall calm, certain events had served as a reminder of the continuing potential for instability, he said. Within the area of operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), on 9 September, according to Lebanese security sources, unidentified armed elements fired one rocket from the Yaroun valley area in the general direction of Israel. The rocket, which had apparently malfunctioned, had landed well on the Lebanese side of the Blue Line. Lebanese authorities had arrested the armed elements in question, who were reported to have had another two rockets in their possession. He commended the quick action by Lebanon's Government and urged it to exert full control over the use of force on its entire territory, and to prevent all attacks from Lebanon across the Blue Line.

He said he regretted to report again that no progress had been achieved on the Syrian-Israeli track. President Bashar al-Assad had stated on a number of occasions that he stood ready to re-engage in peace negotiations with Israel. Little had come of those openings. The resumption and completion of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria and the implementation of resolutions 242 and 338 were indispensable ingredients of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

At the start of the briefing, he said, he had spoken of a "palpable sense of drift and foreboding". That stemmed from an equally pervasive sense of pessimism about the prospects in the Middle East, coupled with frustration because the basis of a settlement –- the two-State solution –- was well established and enjoyed strong support among both the Israeli and Palestinian publics. One heard from many quarters that the time had come for a renewed commitment and effort, but that the parties could not succeed if left to themselves. The international community's more vigorous engagement was, therefore, an indispensable ingredient for ending the violence and bringing fresh hope of peace in the Middle East.

Draft Resolution Supported by 11 Members; United States, Exercising Veto, Calls It 'Lopsided' and against Cause of Peace

SC/8207
Security Council 5051st Meeting (PM)

Rejecting a draft resolution in the Security Council today that would have demanded an end to the Israeli military offensive in Gaza, the representative of the United States said the text was "dangerously disingenuous" because of what it failed to say. He added that when the rest of the world "ganged up" on Israel with silence about terrorism, it did not advance the cause of peace.

The draft resolution, tabled by Algeria, Pakistan and Tunisia, was defeated on the negative vote of the United States. Eleven members voted in favour. There were three abstentions (Germany, Romania, United Kingdom). The Council would have called on Israel to ensure the unfettered access and safety of United Nations personnel and all medical and humanitarian aid workers to provide emergency assistance to civilians, and on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map.

The United States representative said the "lopsided and unbalanced" draft condemned Israel's military actions in Gaza and criticized what it called "incursions" into the Jabaliya refugee camp. It condemned Israeli acts of "destruction", and it lamented "extensive human casualties" among Palestinians, but it had not mentioned even one of the 450 Qassam rocket attacks launched against Israel over the past two years, or the two Israeli children who were outside playing last week when a rocket suddenly crashed into their young bodies. It did not mention the undisputed fact that Qassam rockets had no military purpose, and were crude, imprecise devices of terror designed to kill civilians. Nor had it mentioned the complete failure of the Palestinian Authority to meet its commitments to establish security among its people, or the legitimate right of Israel to defend itself.

Algeria's representative said it was a sad day for the Palestinian people and the cause of justice. By failing to act, the Council had once again failed the Palestinian people and had confirmed that, when it came to Israel, it was unable to take action. The Council today had caused more frustration, disappointment and despair among the Palestinians and all who considered the Council to be the custodian of international law and the protector of the weak.

Agreeing that the Council had again failed to fulfil its responsibilities under the Charter, Palestine's Permanent Observer to the United Nations said that today 20 bullets riddled the body of a Palestinian child of 13 years of age on her way to school. He had not heard a word about Israeli tanks, bulldozers, military gunships, military jets made in the United States or missiles, and not a word about the destruction of the lives and future of the Palestinian people.

Israel's representative said he was pleased that the draft had not been adopted as it should have never been considered. A text that condemned mechanisms for fighting terrorism instead of terrorism itself distorted the issues at hand, and a resolution that indicted the victims of terror rather than murder was wrong. Israel had the right and duty to defend its citizens from the rain of missiles as long as the Palestinian leadership did nothing to stifle terrorism.

Explanations of vote were also made by the representatives of Brazil, France, Pakistan, Philippines, Chile, Russian Federation, Romania, Spain, China, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

The meeting began at 5:07 p.m. and was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

Background

The Security Council met this afternoon to consider the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, for which it had before it a draft resolution submitted by Algeria, Pakistan and Tunisia, as follows:

"The Security Council,

"Reaffirming its previous resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 1322 (2000), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002), 1403 (2002), 1405 (2002), 1435 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1544 (2004),

"Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

"Condemning the broad military incursion and attacks by the Israeli occupying forces in the area of Northern Gaza Strip, including in and around the Jabaliya refugee camp, resulting in extensive human casualties and destruction and exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation,

"Reiterating its call upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War of 12 August 1949,

"Recalling the obligations of the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel under the Road Map,

"Condemning all acts of violence, terror, excessive and indiscriminate use of force, and physical destruction,

"Reaffirming its support for the Road Map endorsed in its resolution 1515 (2003),

"1. Demands the immediate cessation of all military operations in the area of Northern Gaza and the withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from that area;

"2. Reiterates its call for the cessation of violence and for respect of and adherence to legal obligations, including those under international humanitarian law;

"3. Calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to ensure the unfettered access and safety of United Nations personnel and all medical and humanitarian aid workers to provide emergency assistance to the civilian population, and calls for the respect of the inviolability of the facilities of the United Nations agencies in the field, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA);

"4. Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map and with this goal in mind closely cooperate with the 'Quartet';

"5. Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Action on Draft Resolution

Speaking before the vote on the draft resolution on the Middle East, JOHN DANFORTH (United States) said that, once again, the draft was "lopsided and unbalanced". It was "dangerously disingenuous" because of its many material omissions. Because of that lack of balance, because of those omissions, the text lacked credibility and deserved a "no" vote, both for what it said and then for what it failed to say. The text condemned Israel's military actions in Gaza; it criticized what it called "incursions" into the Jabaliya refugee camp; it condemned Israeli acts of "destruction", and it lamented "extensive human casualties" among Palestinians. It demanded that Israel, as the "occupying Power", withdraw its forces immediately. Those were tough words.

He said the United States had no problem with "tough words", but only when those were accurate and there was balance. The draft did not mention even one of the 450 Qassam rocket attacks launched against Israel over the past two years. It did not mention 200 rockets launched this year alone. It did not mention the two Israeli children who were outside playing last week when a rocket suddenly crashed into their young bodies. It did not mention the undisputed fact that Qassam rockets had no military purpose -- - that those were crude, imprecise devices of terror designed to kill civilians. It did not mention that Hamas took "credit" for killing those Israeli children and maiming many other Israeli civilians -- - calling those deaths and woundings a "victory". It did not mention that the terrorists hid among Palestinian civilians, provoking their deaths, and then used those deaths as fodder for their hatred, lawlessness, and efforts to derail the peace process.

In addition, he went on, the draft did not mention the complete failure of the Palestinian Authority to meet its commitments to establish security among its people. The text did not acknowledge the legitimate need for Israel to defend itself; it was totally lacking in balance. When the rest of the world "ganged up" on Israel with insidious silence about terrorism, it did not advance the cause of peace. It encouraged both sides to dig in; it made Israel feel isolated and backed into a corner, and it discouraged dialogue.

Both sides needed to renounce violence, recommit to the Road Map, and move quickly to establish a Palestinian State. But, until the Palestinians and those claiming to act in their name stopped their use of indiscriminate acts of terror, Israel would likely continue to track down the terrorists wherever those might hide, often with the tragic but unintended result of civilian casualties.

The Security Council should "reverse the incessant stream" of one anti-Israel resolutions after the other, and apply pressure even-handedly, on both sides, to return to the road to peace. The United States would vote "no" on that text.

Proceeding to the vote, the draft resolution was defeated by a vote of 11 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (Germany, Romania, United Kingdom).

Speaking after the vote, ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) regretted that such a balanced and credible text, that had merely called on Israel to end its military operation, had not gained the Council's unanimous endorsement. By failing to take action, the Council was once again failing the Palestinian people and sending the wrong message to the world. It also confirmed that when it came to Israel, the Security Council was unable to take action, let alone under Chapter VII. It also strengthened the impression that the Council was only effective when it dealt with Arab countries, the latest example of which was the prompt adoption of resolution 1559 on Lebanon, although there had been no threat to international peace and security.

He said the Council was causing more frustration, disappointment and despair among the Palestinians and all who considered the Council as the custodian of international law and the protector of the weak. More importantly, it would reinforce the sentiment of impunity among the Israeli leaders who would feel emboldened to pursue and expand their military operations in Gaza and elsewhere. Thanking all who had voted in favour of the draft, he said it was a sad day for the Palestinians and the cause of justice.

RONALDO MOTA SARDENBERG (Brazil) said he had voted in favour of the draft, as his Government strongly deplored the acts of violence carried out on the northern border of Gaza, in particular, the offensive conducted by the Israeli Defence Forces under the code name "Days of Penitence". That incursion had resulted in more than 70 deaths and more than 250 wounded. While expressing his support for the call made by the Secretary-General in his note of 3 October in favour of a ceasefire, he had also hoped that, with the engagement of the international community, the parties involved in the conflict would halt the violence and resume the peace talks under the pattern set forth in the Road Map.

JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIERE (France) said he had supported the draft calling for the immediate cessation of the Israeli military operations in the north of the Gaza Strip and contained a condemnation of acts of terrorism. It also reaffirmed the need for the speedy implementation of the Road Map. The last two points were essential to France. Also crucial was for the Council to respond rapidly to the deteriorating situation, and he appealed to reason in that regard. He recognized the right of Israel to respond, in the context of international law. He regretted that, once again, the Council had been paralysed on the core issue -- - core to international peace and security.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said his delegation had co-sponsored the draft, which sought to address an emergency humanitarian situation arising from the Israeli military incursion that had led to some 80 deaths, including women and children. Apart from its humanitarian dimension, the incursion constituted a violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, warranting Council action under its Charter obligations. Politically, the situation posed a great danger to ongoing peace efforts in the region.

Unfortunately, the Council had not met the expectations of the Palestinians, as well as the wider public opinion in the Muslim world, he added. It also indicated that the Council, in certain situations, was unable to act. Today's inaction would not contribute to the cause of peace and justice in the Middle East. The sense of helplessness among Palestinians would further aggravate an already volatile situation. By not acting, the Council had missed an opportunity to contribute to peace in the Middle East.

BAYANI MERCADO (Philippines), noting that he had supported the draft, reiterated his delegation's concern with the escalating violence in the Middle East and urged both sides to halt the violence. There would be no peace in the Middle East unless the cycle of attack and reprisal stopped on both sides. He appealed to both sides to respect the peace process under the aegis of the Road Map.

CRISTIAN MAQUIEIRA (Chile) said he had voted in favour of the draft, as Chile condemned any act of violence whatever its origin and especially when civilian victims were involved. He recognized Israel's right to protect itself from terrorist acts, as long as they fell within international legality. He appealed for caution and the need to act within the context of international humanitarian law. He also rejected what had been done against the Israeli population. He reminded the parties to protect the civilian population and end the violence. He also appealed for the resumption of negotiations within the context of the Road Map.

ANDREY DENISOV (Russian Federation) said his Foreign Minister today had emphasized in the course of talks that the important thing now was to take urgent steps to put an end to the urgent confrontation. As he himself understood it, the main objective of the draft was to stop the violence, but the text required more balance. He had suggested changes, but those had been taken into account only partially. Nevertheless, he had decided to support the resolution.

MIHNEA IOAN MOTOC (Romania) said he could not support the draft and had abstained in the vote. The text did not reflect amendments, which described fairly the facts and responsibilities on both sides with regard to the recent dramatic events, or their reciprocal obligations to prevent the escalation of violence. He was deeply concerned about the deteriorating security on the ground and the fate of numerous Palestinians suffering from Israeli military incursion. He recognized Israel's right to defend its citizens, but that could be exercised only in the boundaries of international law. Operations, such as the one in northern Gaza, were not helpful to Israeli security. He encouraged the parties to resume talks and agree to a ceasefire. A just, comprehensive and lasting peace could be achieved only through negotiations, as envisaged in the Road Map and in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions.

JUAN ANTONIO YAرEZ-BARNUEVO (Spain) said he had fully expressed his views yesterday on the issues. On the basis of the principles set forth and the statements made in that debate, he had cast a vote in support of the text today. He regretted that it could not have been adopted. It contained certain elements essential to dealing with the situation, given the urgency of the required response and the gravity of unfolding events. Reference had been made in the text not only for the need to stop the military operations and for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area, but also to condemn all acts of violence, terrorism, indiscriminate force and destruction. Regrettably, the Council had been unable to shoulder its responsibility. The situation would have to remain under consideration. Meanwhile he called on both parties to comply with their obligations.

ZHANG YISHAN (China) said he had supported the draft resolution and regretted that it had not been adopted. China's position was clear and consistent. He believed that as a core body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Council should bear responsibility for protecting the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Negotiation was the only way to achieve peace. He urged the parties to resume dialogue and return to political negotiations.

GUNTER PLEUGER (Germany) said his position regarding the resolution of the Middle East situation was well known. He had tried to introduce into the draft resolution a number of important amendments, but had not succeeded. Therefore, Germany had abstained.

EMYR JONES PARRY (United Kingdom) said he remained greatly concerned about the ongoing violence and bloodshed and urged both sides to take steps to end the violence. The United Kingdom condemned all acts of terrorism, including the firing of Qassam rockets. It also recognized Israel's right to defend itself. Israel's response must be proportionate, however, and respond to international law. The current operation was resulting in deaths and injury and was not proportionate to the threat it faced from rocket attacks. The text wrongly gave the impression that fault lay only on the Israeli side. The responsibility lay with both sides. The resolution should have acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism. It should also have called on the Palestinian Authority to take firm action on acts of terrorism and their perpetrators. The solution to the conflict lay in the Road Map, he added.

NASSER AL-KIDWA, Permanent Observer for Palestine to the United Nations, said that today was yet another sad day for the Security Council, which had again failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the Charter, by not taking a stand with regard to the bloodshed against the Palestinian people, specifically now, in northern Gaza, by the Israeli occupation forces. It failed to do that, and it failed to call for an end to the bloodshed and destruction. At the start of today's meeting, there had been some words about victims among the Israeli children without a single word about the Palestinian children. They suffered much more. Today, 20 bullets riddled the body of a Palestinian child of 13 years of age on her way to school.

He said he had not heard a word about Israeli tanks, bulldozers, military gunships, military jets made in the United States or missiles - -- and not a single word about the destruction of the lives of the Palestinian people as a whole and of their future. What was the difference between the acts of some Palestinian groups and the too many acts of the Israeli occupying forces? Both were aimed at civilians. The real difference was that the Palestinian groups were acting against the will of the Palestinian Authority, while the actions of the Israeli occupying forces were committed by an official army pursuing an official policy of the Government of a Member State of the United Nations.

On the question of Israel's right to self-defence, he said it was inadmissible to talk about that right as if that were in regard to a regular peace-loving country, in full respect of the law. Israel was an occupying Power, and the question of self-defence had been addressed by the International Court of Justice. Naturally, Israel had the right to defend its citizens, but on the basis that it was an occupying Power. Attempts at exoneration in that regard were unacceptable, now or in the future.

He said today's veto was the seventh by the current United States Administration on draft resolutions on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. It was the twenty-ninth veto by the United States on related drafts. That summed up the entire tragedy of the Middle East.

DAN GILLERMAN (Israel) thanked those who had courageously chosen to oppose or not to vote on the draft resolution. The draft should never have been considered. How anyone could have described the text as balanced, when it demanded certain things from Israel while not even hinting at the horror caused by the Palestinians, escaped him. A draft that condemned mechanisms for fighting terrorism instead of terrorism itself distorted issues at hand. Ignoring its obligations, the Palestinian leadership had allowed terrorists to act with impunity from within its territory, aiming their aggression towards civilian populations. Israel would respect its obligations to defend its citizens, while also respecting its obligations to international humanitarian law. Israel had the right and duty to defend its citizens from "the rain of missiles" so long as the Palestinian leadership did nothing to stifle terrorism against the Israeli people.

He said the Palestinian leadership had brought the destruction on its own people by holding them hostage in its evil grip of terror. Were it not for that tragic leadership, and the choice of terror rather than settlement, the Palestinian people would long ago have their own State. The draft would have done nothing to end the suffering for either the Israelis or the Palestinians, but would have worked against the vital interests of both groups. By focusing solely on Israeli actions, and failing to condemn the terrorism, the Council would have emboldened the terrorist to obstruct the path to peace.

He said the struggle towards peace must be advanced. One-sided drafts did not contribute towards the goal of a peaceful Middle East, but only contributed to keeping peace forever out of reach. The Council had an obligation to the victims of terrorism and the struggle for peace. Palestinian terrorist organizations were the true enemies of peace, and of the Palestinian and Israeli people, and should be the focus of the Council's attention.