Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2007, pages 26-27

United Nations Report

Straight-Speaking Under Secretary-General Pascoe Detailed and Damning

By Ian Williams

IT IS ALMOST AN axiom of Middle Eastern politics that, except for American politicians, Israeli politicians and their behavior will eventually exasperate anyone, no matter how sympathetic they were to start with. Ban Ki Moon, who for the first six months or so of his secretary-generalship did not utter a word of condemnation, has now begun to realize just how unsupportable Israeli tactics are.

One of the major influences in this is his new under secretary-general for political affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, who has intervened several times within the U.N. to ensure a sense of balance in the Middle East. There was some apprehension at appointing an American to such a sensitive position, but as luck and good judgment by Ban Ki Moon would have it, it was a sensitive appointment in every sense of the word.

As a former State Department professional—most recently, U.S. ambassador to Indonesia—Pascoe has escaped the immunity from reality regularly granted to American politicians on Israeli questions.

In October, he made his regular report to the Security Council, in dry factual language that is, in its way, far more devastating than the inflammatory rhetoric so often espoused by so-called friends of the Palestinians.

“According to the government of Israel,” he told the Council, “24 roadblocks in the West Bank and one checkpoint have been removed. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which monitors implementation of the Agreement on Movement and Access, reports that the total number of obstacles to movement currently stands at 562, compared with 563 during the previous reporting period.”

Those adept at mental arithmetic will note that Israel claims to have closed 25 barriers—but that somehow the U.N. found only one fewer than before they were closed. Those adept at mental logic will conclude that the government of Israel is lying through its teeth.

“Socio-economic conditions in the West Bank remain a source of serious concern,” Pascoe continued. “Economic activity and humanitarian operations will be seriously affected by the decision of Israel to further restrict access for West Bank residents—including United Nations staff—to East Jerusalem and to the “seam zone” between the barrier and the Green Line. In addition, the announced intention to reduce the number of crossing points for goods from 12 to six, and the imposition of “back-to-back” transport procedures and new customs regulations, would, if implemented, significantly increase the cost of transportation of humanitarian supplies and result in possibly unsustainable operational obstacles. The United Nations is actively engaged with the government of Israel to seek a reconsideration of those measures, in view of their impact on essential humanitarian operations.”

In other words, Israel is callously starving Palestinians despite pleas by U.N. officials. 

“Construction of the barrier has continued throughout the reporting period in the occupied Palestinian territory, despite the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice,” he went on. “Settlement activity continued this month, despite the Quartet’s call for ‘immediate additional steps to meet previous commitments, including under the road map.’ Settlement activity breaches the Fourth Geneva Convention, prejudges final status issues and undermines the political process. It is also a major factor in determining the extent and character of the closure regime and the route of the barrier and consequent hardship for the Palestinian population. Urgent action on an Israeli settlement freeze and the dismantling of settlement outposts is required as part of a genuine effort to resolve the conflict.”

In case anyone missed that, Pascoe was saying that the Israelis are defying international law, and their own commitments under the road map.

“The secretary-general continues to condemn all acts of terrorism,” he pointed out, “as well as all military acts which target, endanger or harm civilians, because of their disproportionate or indiscriminate character.”

Once again, this is a not-so-veiled reference to the Israeli recklessness about Palestinian civilians when they “retaliate” for Qassam attacks or carry out high-tech assassinations of Palestinians.

Pascoe was especially detailed and damning in his recitation of the siege that Israel has been imposing on Gaza, culminating in the current threat to cut off electricity. It is worth remembering, since he omitted to point it out, that one of the reasons such a threat is so potent is that Israel destroyed the power station in Gaza that U.S. taxpayers had paid for. One waits in vain for any U.S. presidential candidate or congressperson to lament this waste of taxpayer funds and demand restitution.

“It is difficult to see how security concerns can justify the hardship that these measures are causing,” Pascoe concluded. “I repeat the secretary-general’s strong injunction against the punishing of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. We also reiterate the Quartet’s urgent concern about the continued closure of Gaza and its calls for continued emergency and humanitarian assistance without obstruction, and the provision of essential services.”

That brings us to the Quartet and whether its members can be shamed out of acting as a cover for U.S. (and thus Israeli) foreign policy. The international peace talks are even more nebulous than usual, in terms of their participants and their purpose.

On one level, the international community must be seen as trying to do something, and one fears that it is perception rather than reality that is the concern. It is clear to all objective observers that any lasting solution requires recognition of the U.N. resolutions. I say recognition, rather than implementation, because if Israel, and its U.S. partner which voted for these resolutions, can assert that they recognize them, the Palestinians have shown that they are prepared to discuss how they are implemented.

Once accepted, “rights” are negotiable. If they are disregarded, however, then there can be no meaningful negotiation of a lasting agreement. For example, the relevant resolution, 181, calls for the right to return, or for compensation, of the refugees of 1948. The boundaries of 1967 are the default, but the framers of 242 envisaged tidying up the armistice lines.

Moreover, if rights are to be negotiated, then it makes even less sense to exclude Hamas from the negotiations. Whether one likes them or not, they represent a significant proportion, indeed perhaps a majority of Palestinians. Without their assent, there can be no long-term peace settlement.

Israel’s Fatal Ambivalence

So if Washington can force Israel to negotiate on the basis of the U.N. resolutions there may be a chance of peace. But the Israeli positions contain a fatal ambivalence. While it is in the long-term interests of Israelis to have secure, recognized boundaries, perhaps even guaranteed by the U.S., NATO and the international community, the ideological tail, the settlers’ bloc, continues to wag the dog.

The right-wing settlers do not want to see any peace agreement that is feasible, because it would involve not only giving up much, if not all, of what they have taken, but also deprive them of the opportunity of further encroachments. That process of not-so-stealthy stealing that Pascoe highlighted on his speech has been countenanced and encouraged by successive Israeli governments even as they pledged to the U.S. and the Quartet that it would stop.

The amusing distinction between “illegal” outposts and settlements is, of course, a total charade. All the settlements and outposts are illegal—and all of them have been getting water, electricity and protection from the IDF regardless of the shadowboxing.

The U.S. could play a crucial role. Many Israelis dislike the settlers anyway, since they consume large amounts of taxpayers’ money and behave as if they were deinstitutionalized mental patients anyway. Israelis almost certainly would be prepared to cut them loose in return for a U.S. security guarantee.

The problem, of course, is that the Israel lobby in the U.S. is not only overwhelmingly unrepresentative of the political sympathies of American Jews; it is not that representative of Israeli sentiment, either. Its hard-right ideological cast—between Christian Zionists, neocons, and the die-hard Likudniks in Israel—skew the political process in Washington.

In the past, other U.S. allies did provide alternative pressure on the White House to be more balanced. Sadly, since 9/11, far too many of them, particularly in the EU, have been mesmerized by the constant recitation of “terror” and “terrorism” to accept behavior by Israel that five years ago would have been met with Security Council resolutions condemning it. With the departure of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and even the change of government in Poland, there may be a small shift back toward less obsequiousness to Israel on the part of the international community. That shift in emphasis is evident in the turn-around by the most pro-Israel secretary-general ever, as shown in Pascoe’s report.

So while one would be hard put to be positively optimistic over the impending (at press time) Annapolis talks, there may be some grounds for slightly less pessimism.

Ian Williams, a free-lance journalist based at the United Nations, is working on a book about U.N.-Haters in the U.S., and has a blog at <www.deadlinepundit.blogspot.com>. His last book was Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776.

< Prev		Next >