Father of Detained Israeli Soldier Says Son’s Continued Captivity and Palestinian Bid for Statehood are Incompatible

by Eli Fink

The father of an Isreali soldier held by Hamas in Gaza says the UN General Assembly should resist supporting a bid for Palestinian recognition at the world body until his son is released. 

“The Palestinians cannot go on with this grave breach of international law and humanitarian law and at the same time ask for legitimacy and to be a member state of the United Nations- It doesn’t go together.” Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, told Talk Radio News. “We are not asking the leaders of the world not to vote on behalf of the Palestinians [at the GA meetings this month], but to stop breaching international law and humanitarian law and release our son unconditionally.”   

 Shalit is meeting with UN diplomats in New York this week, the most recent attempt in a long list of family efforts to secure Gilad’s freedom. He and his wife Aviva have already set up a protest tent outside the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem and have been strong proponents of a prisoner exchange deal between the Israeli government and Hamas.

Gilad Shalit was a nineteen-year-old corporal in the Israeli Defenses Forces in 2006 when he was abducted by militants associated with the Gaza-based Palestinian faction Hamas. His current condition and the terms of his detention are unknown as no outside visitors have been permitted to see him. In the fall of 2009 Hamas put out a 2 minute video of the former tank driver which proved he was still alive in exchange for the release of twenty female Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons. 

Jewish Group Says Palestinian Statehood Could Ignite Civil War Between Hamas, Fatah

The United Nations recognition of a Palestinian State at this year’s General Assembly could lead to a civil war between competing Palestinian political factions and a possible increase in attacks against Israel, says the head of a the World Jewish Congress, an organization dedicated to protecting Jewish communities. 

  “If this unilateral declaration were to be endorsed by the United Nations it would most likely trigger the continuation of a vicious cycle of violence within the Palestinian side.” Dan Diker, Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), told reporters at the UN this afternoon. “The way that might play out is for Israel to be attacked, in order to distract attention from what is really happening, which is an internal Palestinian civil war between Fatah and Hamas.” 

Palestinian leadership continues to maintain it will seek recognition at the United Nations this fall, although details about the exact status of recognition it is looking for remain unclear. 

Diplomats say they have already secured support from over 120 countries. 

 Regardless of the questions surrounding the exact nature of the Palestinian request, groups like the WJC say any “unilateral” Palestinian action at the world body will set the peace process back decades and threaten the UN’s integrity. 

“It would be an egregious violation of the very peace framework that this institution[UN] has established for the Arab states and Israel and has supported in every single peace process since 1967.” 

Diker was at the UN along with members of the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians (ICJP), a coalition of Jewish legislators and ministers from around the world, to discuss support for Israel ahead of the General Assembly later this month. 

 ICJP Chair Fiamma Nirenstein, an Italian Member of Parliament, echoed the WJC Secretary General’s view  that recognition of Palestinian statehood would likely negate any previous international agreements between both parties. 

 “The moment when you arrive to unilateral declaration, you cancel them out…you make a blank slate.” she said, 

 Nearly a year ago, Palestinian leadership walked away from peace talks after Israel refused to extend a settlement freeze in the Occupied Territories. The UN has since voiced concern over an important increase in settlement construction. 

 The United States, Tel Aviv’s strongest ally at the world body, says continued construction of settlement is counter productive to peace efforts and illegitimate, but should not preclude negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Nirenstein dismissed the notion that the Netanyahu government’s stance on settlement expansion was a significant obstacle to Middle East Peace, and argued that the issue should be part of the final negotiation process. 

“A lot of the settlements have been dismantled in the Gaza strip, and probably the moment when there is an agreement, this is what will happen and the settlements will be dismantled.”

Palestine's Admission To UN Can Be Positive, Say Advocates On Both Sides

As the upcoming United Nations (UN) General Assembly creeps closer, Israeli policy experts across the world are hurrying to gather information about Palestine’s potential declaration of statehood. Many wonder if such an act will hinder or advance the Arab-Israeli peace process. 

After peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine were stalled for almost two years, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat announced in March to AFP (Agence France Presse) that the Palestinian leadership planned to request full membership to the UN, along with recognition of a Palestinian state at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September. 

Omar Dajani, former adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), told reporters today that such a request has three anticipated favorable outcomes for Palestinians:

1. Palestinian legal position in negotiations will be greatly improved.

2. Pressure will be placed on the Israeli government to return to the negotiating table and halt construction on settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.                  

3. Mass mobilization and non-violent resistance will be promoted in the West Bank and Gaza strip. 

“It is important to look at these goals and see how they can be coextensive with the Israel peace camp and conversely, how they can be turned to a destructive direction in the process of peace,” Dajani said. 

The “destructive direction” Dajani referred to is that Palestinian leaders will be violating existing agreements between them and Israel if they involve the UN. Past agreements, such as the Declaration of Principles and the Roadmap, require that disputes between Israel and Palestine be settled via direct negotiations and not through third parties, such as the UN.

Consequentially, by involving the UN and violating existing peace agreements, spectators fear it will destroy any hope of further peace negotiations. 

Gadi Baltiansky, former press secretary for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and director-general of the Geneva Initiative, however, believes that the Israel advocacy community is making too big of a deal out of this.

“Every year so many resolutions are taken by the UN and no one pays attention,” he told reporters. “The Palestinians are just trying to upgrade their status in the UN…It is not a dramatic move that will change history.”

“I am not sure this will be a constructive move that leads towards a better future,” Baltiansky continued. “But when we think about the other options without negotiations, this can be better.”

Both Baltiansky and Dajani agreed that the UN vote can be a positive experience if used as an opportunity to relaunch peace talks. 

“See it as a potential resolution that is good for both sides,” Baltiansky said. “Use language that both sides can live with. Imagine a resolution that says the world will recognize a capital in Jerusalem and Palestine with a border in between them. For the first time the world will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

“Make it into a resolution that references territory swaps,” Dajani said. “Such a resolution will move them forward with the peace process since they will understand that whatever territorial concessions were made to accommodate settlement growth would be compensated for them.”  

While many are worried about the UN General Assembly in September, it is clear that the sequential step is most important. It is after the UN vote that both sides will need to work together toward future peace talks.

UN Arms Treaty Riles US Gun Lobby

By Gregory Chalfin 

The debate surrounding gun rights and the Second Amendment remains one of the most politically sensitive issues in the country. 

After much delay, now entering its fifth year of negotiations, the global Arms Trade Treaty seems to be picking up a little speed despite opposition from the US gun lobby. 

The treaty is a potential global agreement that would monitor the international trade and transfer of conventional firearms. States would still be responsible for regulating gun ownership laws and export controls, but would have to comply with new standards to assess if transfers comply with international human rights and security commitments. 

In 2006 and 2008, the US was the only country to vote against the ATT at the UN General Assembly, although several other member states abstained or simply did not vote. However US policy towards a global arms treaty has changed since the Obama administration has taken office.

In 2009, the US along with 153 other countries voted in favor of an Arms Trade Treaty, what some say could be a significant reversal for the world’s biggest exporter of weapons ($55 billion per year, 40% of the global total).

 Diplomats met last month at UN headquarters and US officials are continuing their consultations with experts ahead of the final negotiation conference scheduled for 2012. 

Although the resolution has enjoyed overwhelming support from most NGOs and rights groups, the Obama administration will have to contend with significant opposition to the treaty from US gun ownership groups and lobbyists. American officials have already voiced concern about the inclusion of small arms and light weapons ammunitions into any agreement. 

While countries like the UK and other supporters argue there is nothing in the treaty that specifically threatens the Second Amendment to the Constitution or other national gun ownership policies, the NRA has predictably taken up the fight against the ATT.

In a statement addressed to the United Nations in June, Executive Vice President of the NRA Wayne Lapierre said his organization:” rejects the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.”

NRA-ILA spokeswoman Rachel Parsons argues that the international community hasn’t given her organizations enough guarantees the treaty won’t affect civilian gun ownership in the United States. 

 “It’s said that the ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms, but there are proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership that have not been rejected in the treaty.” she told Talk Radio News Service “They have said that the ATT will not interfere with state regulation of domestic firearms, yet there are still constant calls for just that.”

Parsons also believes the Obama administration is greatly over- estimating American public support for an arms treaty and claims that even the Senate is concerned it could infringe on US gun laws.  

“Even before being submitted, [the ATT] has more opposition than any treaty in history. There has been a majority of the Senate that has come out opposing any treaty that would regulate or require reporting of civilian firearms ownership.”

Private security companies (PSCs) have also been fighting this legislation to protect their booming businesses. PSCs reportedly control 1.7 to 3.7 million firearms and employ 19.5 to 25.5 million people globally, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. The report contends that increased transparency requirements would drastically improve the United Nations’ ability to hold the private security sector to more stringent international standards.

Scott Stedjan, a senior policy advisor at Oxfam America and strong advocate of the treaty, is realistic but hopeful about what the treaty could achieve.

“In truth there isn’t going to be any global mechanism that is there to enforce the treaty. The treaty is going to have to be enforced by states themselves in their own national law, which will take some time to implement, so it’s not going to be right away.” he told Talk Radio News. “I don’t think its day one, the treaty starts and there’s a big difference. But over the long run, even the medium run, you’ll start seeing an impact. You’ll start seeing the pipeline of weapons start to slow down. You’ll start seeing countries acting more responsibly in who they sell weapons to and looking at the record of that country before they transfer weapons and then hold them accountable afterwards.”

Press Briefing on President Obama's Visit to the United Nations

The White House held a teleconference this afternoon to chronicle President Obama’s visit to the United Nations this week from Wednesday through Friday.

United Nations Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice underscored the President’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, where he is set to address the General Assembly at the close of the three-day MDG summit on Wednesday. The President will underscore the United States commitment to building partnerships in order to achieve the goals by 2015. 

Rice also highlighted other initiatives the Administration has undertaken since Obama was elected President.

“We have ended needless American isolation…and badly frayed relationships” she added.

Rice was referring to the strenuous relationship former Ambassador Jon Bolton had developed with UN partners and agencies which branded the Bush Administration as reluctant to work outside of its own rigid agenda. 

Rice added that critical negotiations over the UN’s budget were underway, and the United States took a lead role in the development of UN Women—a new division tasked with boosting women’s equality and empowerment. She also cited the critical work her team was doing to keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan during elections and the promotion of Obama’s “new era of engagement” with war torn countries like Sudan. She added that critical to the work of the Administration will be moving ahead with tougher sanctions on Iran and North Korea for building up their nuclear programs—and thus violating international treaties.

Samantha Power, the President’s Special Assistant, underscored efforts in Sudan during a high level meeting organized by the US Administration for this Friday, September 24.  

“This meeting will ensure parties are unified and working together,” she stated.

Ben Rhodes from the Adminstration’s office added that bilateral meetings with China, Japan, Azerbaijan and Colombia are further indicators of the President’s commitment to unify parties and to build peaceful coalitions. The President will address the General Assembly on Thursday, September 23 as well as address the Clinton Global Initiative on Thursday evening with his wife Michelle by his side. On Friday, he will attend a luncheon hosted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.