UN Special Rapporteur calls for Israeli sanctions unless it lifts the Gaza blockade

From the UN News Centre:

The United Nations independent expert on Palestinian rights has again called for a threat of economic sanctions against Israel to force it to lift its blockade of Gaza, which is preventing the return to a normal life for 1.5 million residents after the devastating Israeli offensive a year ago.

“Obviously Israel does not respond to language of diplomacy, which has encouraged the lifting of the blockade and so what I am suggesting is that it has to be reinforced by a threat of adverse economic consequences for Israel,” Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, told UN Radio.

The article also notes:

In a new policy brief, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), entrusted with promoting the integration of developing countries into the world economy, reported that more than 80 per cent of Gaza’s population are now impoverished; 43 per cent unemployed; and 75 per cent lack food security. “In view of the eroded productive base, poverty is likely to widen and deepen unless reconstruction begins in earnest and without further delay,” it warned.

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 39 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. sammy says:

    In light of the above, a look at Burstons article on Israels ten worst mistakes of the decade
    link to haaretz.com

  2. Any other country that does what Israel does would have had sanctions slapped on it from day 1.

  3. Chaos4700 says:

    So what do you suppose the US is going to do if sanctions are imposed against Israel? Would we break them openly? That would be tantamount to rescinding our membership in the UN.

  4. Its interesting that Adam posted Falk’s position in the UN rather than his name in the headline.

  5. Not a hope of sanctions on Israel until the US loses its veto power in the Security Council
    Perhaps the rest of the world could organise itself into UN2, which would represent it better without Big Brother’s control?

    • sammy says:

      Why do you think the Goldstone report was presented to the General Assembly, rather than the Security Council? The US is fast losing its relevancy as a mediator.

      Today’s Ha’aretz:
      Arab League chief: More UN, less U.S. in Mideast peace bids
      link to haaretz.com

      • The government of the UN is bicameral. It takes passing both the General Assembly and the Security Council to be international law.

        When a bill passes the house of representatives in the US, it is not law, but proposal for law, requiring Senate approval and Presidential ratification.

        The UN general assembly alone is a suggestion.

        I thought you preferred more direct democracy, than advocacy for nation-states having a monopoly on control, either in the general assembly or security council.

        • Aref says:

          So then the UN partition plan of 1947 that Israel and its Zionist supporters continuously cling to as the source of legitimacy is simply a suggestion and has no legal standing because it was adopted in the UN General Assembly. What do think Mr. Witty?

        • The 1949 armistice was approved by the general assembly and security council, but as temporary.

          The 1948 general assembly vote that authorized the state of Israel (only subject to general assembly) defined borders at that time.

          It is an argument that right-wing Zionists use to suggest that the West Bank was not originally mandated as a Palestinian state, and that borders are entirely fluid.

          And, it is an argument by proponents of a more limited Israel by Arab states.

          It is the signficance of the need for consented border definition, negotiated between the parties themselves.

          Resolution 242 does not state final borders either, but does refer to return to prior borders, which were never authorized as you pointed out.

          There is no supreme court in the UN to reconcile legislative inconsistencies like there is in the US.

        • I’m aware of the ambiguity of borders, which is why I advocate for negotiation that realizes the 67 borders as basis, with the recommendation that Israel offer more than that geographic land area to Palestine, the specific boundaries by consent.

          So long as the split between the PA and Hamas remains volatile, that negotiation, that clarification, that actual definition of international law gets delayed.

          And, to my thinking, militancy rather than unification (different than unity which usually means conformity) is necessary to proceed.

          Maybe its happening.

          My goal is 67 borders, by genuine consent, provisions for full democracy in each state, and ACTUAL peace that facilitates a good neighbor to good neighbor relationship.

          I am most heartened by the efforts of the PA to nation-build creating an undeniable and pragmatic fully sovereign state in fact.

          Agitation alone, or primarily, does not accomplish a nation in fact, and in too many ways deters it.

        • Citizen says:

          What is the equivalent of Israel’s claim to legitimacy based on the bible and the Shoah, for those Palestinian arabs who claim rights Israel does not acknowledge?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          So long as the split between the PA and Hamas remains volatile, that negotiation, that clarification, that actual definition of international law gets delayed.

          Which would be why the US and Israel engineered that split in the first place.
          link to vanityfair.com

  6. potsherd says:

    In a hopeful moment of peace, Ismail Haniyeh called the cell phone of Arab MK Talab Al-Sana. His remarks were broadcast over a loudspeaker to the protesters gathered on the Israeli side of the barrier:

    “We are proud of the Palestinian citizens of the 1948 territories who have come to identify with us. We send a greeting to all the members of parliament, to Sheikh Raed Salah and to all the people who have come to expresses their support for us.”

    The response of the Israeli right wing: a call for repression and prosecution.

    Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch turned to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz and asked him to file charges against MK El-Sana for supporting a terror organization.

    “After the minister learned of the phone call in which he broadcast the evil words of the Hamas leader, he sent an urgent letter to Mazuz, demanding that he prosecute him for supporting a terror organization,” an official at Aharonovitch’s office said.

    “We cannot accept a situation in which every person, let alone a Knesset member in the State of Israel, serves as a pipeline for a terror organization whose only goal is to destroy the State of Israel. There is a limit to cynicism.”

    “Enforcing the law is the internal security minister’s supreme value, and we view this as a blatant offense. Even the bill for the phone the call was made on is paid by the State of Israel.”

    MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) said, “This time MK El-Sana has crossed all red lines. Letting one of the State of Israel’s greatest enemies speak and incite masses against the country deserves a criminal investigation and prosecution. This act is a clear support for armed terror,” Orlev said.

    link to ynetnews.com

  7. Pingback: French Gaza Freedom March activist killed in Cairo « Did You Know

Leave a Reply