Mr. President,

1. Since the 27 January briefing, efforts to bring about Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have continued. A proposal from US Envoy Mitchell to the parties to begin indirect talks with US mediation is currently under serious consideration. Israel has indicated its readiness to work on this basis, while President Abbas has been engaged in intensive consultations and sought clarifications. The Secretary-General hopes that President Abbas will move forward on the basis of this practical proposal so that serious talks can begin. He notes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stated commitment to a two State solution, although confusion as to the government’s intentions arises from statements by various government officials.

2. We continue to stress the importance of doing everything possible to ensure that negotiations lead in a clear timeframe to an agreement resolving all final status issues, including Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security, settlements and water. We believe that the international consensus on what it takes to reach a sustainable agreement is strong, and that an active Quartet will be vital to support the process.

3. The Israeli government’s partial restraint on settlement construction in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, remains in effect, and has led to a slowdown of construction activity. However, violations of the restraint orders have been identified by the Israeli authorities in at least 29 settlements, with the Defence Ministry stating that it is issuing demolition and stop work orders against violators. While the Israeli government’s settlement restraint constitutes at a step beyond previous positions, settlements are illegal – and continued settlement activity violates Israel’s Roadmap obligations and prejudges the outcome of negotiations. We therefore urge additional measures to enforce the restraint. We also urge its extension into a comprehensive freeze, including in East Jerusalem, as well as its continuation beyond the current ten month period.

4. There were no demolitions of Palestinian homes or evictions in East Jerusalem during the reporting period, a positive development which we hope will continue. We continue to call for the re-opening of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem in accordance with Roadmap obligations. The status of Jerusalem is to be determined through negotiations, and we believe that a way must be found through negotiations for Jerusalem to emerge as the capital of two States.

5. The Palestinian Authority’s efforts to meet its Roadmap obligations to combat terrorism have continued in the West Bank, reflecting impressive achievements in reform, professionalization, and performance. It is important that the Palestinian Authority leadership continues to speak out against violence and incitement. On 10 February an Israeli soldier was killed by a knife attack. The incident was condemned by Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad.

6. There were 79 Israeli army incursions into West Bank towns and villages in response to alleged security threats. Nearly 500 Palestinians were arrested. On 12 February, Israeli security forces shot and killed a Palestinian for attempting to stab a soldier in Hebron, while 41 other Palestinians were injured in IDF actions. Israeli security forces also carried out extensive operations in Shuafat refugee camp in East Jerusalem between 8 and 10 February.

7. Palestinian, Israeli and foreign protesters continued demonstrating against the barrier where it is being constructed within the West Bank in contravention of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. There have been raids into Ramallah against individuals and organizations involved in protests. In a positive action, we note that Israel began work on 10 February to reroute a section of the barrier around the village of Bil’in to implement a 2007 Israeli High Court order, which is expected to return 700,000 square meters of arable land to the village, while leaving approximately 150,000 square meters west of the barrier.

8. We are also concerned at continued settler violence. There have been 8 reported attacks by settlers on Palestinians, including on 9 February when settlers shot and injured a Palestinian teenager.

9. We note legitimate Israeli and Palestinian security concerns. Sustainable security will best be achieved by intensified cooperation, continued empowerment of PA security efforts and PA performance, curtailment of IDF incursions into Palestinian areas, full respect for legitimate non-violent protest, Israeli action to curb settler violence, Palestinian action against incitement, and progress in both political negotiations and economic development.

10. OCHA recorded the removal of 24 closure obstacles throughout the Hebron governorate, continuing the gradual easing of Palestinian movement in areas to the east of the Barrier. However, as of 16 February, 550 obstacles to movement remain in place throughout the West Bank, of which 89 are permanently and partially staffed checkpoints. The Israeli government recently allowed tourist buses to use the Jalameh vehicle crossing from northern Israel into the West Bank, with the aim of boosting the Palestinian tourism sector. The Israeli government is encouraged to continue to facilitate this access, and to take more far-reaching measures as well.

11. The important work of Palestinian state-building through institutional reform and development is continuing. However, the recurrent financing requirements facing the Palestinian Authority are still substantial, projected at about $1.2 billion in 2010, despite reduced spending on wages and subsidies. We encourage donors to channel their assistance, first and foremost through the Single Treasury Account, and to support the priorities articulated by the Palestinian Authority for 2010. We welcome recent transfers and pledges and also strongly encourage those donors who have not yet done so to frontload financial support, to allow for greater predictability. We also stress the importance of applying accepted principles of aid effectiveness to ensure better targeting and maximize program impact.

Mr. President,

12. On 8 February the Palestinian Cabinet called for local elections to be held on 17 July 2010, in accordance with the local election law for all 335 municipal councils in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian Central Election Commission is planning to start registering voters on 6 March. We take this opportunity to urge Hamas to respond positively to this important part of the democratic process.

13. Senior Fateh and independent figures visited Gaza during the reporting period in an effort to ease tensions and promote reconciliation. Other factions in the Gaza Strip have also been active in this direction, and an Arab parliamentary group visited the Strip on 15 and 16 February. However, to date, there has been no further progress in finalizing an agreement based on Egypt’s proposal.

14. It is deeply regrettable that there has been no breakthrough on a prisoner exchange to secure the release of Corporal Shalit and Palestinian prisoners, despite intensive efforts in recent months.

15. While the Hamas de facto authorities are reportedly exerting efforts to prevent the launching of rockets at Israel, 19 projectiles were fired from Gaza and 11 reached southern Israel during this reporting period, with no damages or injuries reported. Three barrels of explosives washed up on Israeli beaches between 1 and 3 February, with a further two detonating at sea. There was an IED attack on a convoy of ICRC vehicles on 4 February which damaged one vehicle, and two other IED attacks, reportedly by Salafist elements, killing one Hamas militant and injuring four others. One Palestinian was killed in an Israeli air strike, and 7 others were injured in IDF incursions and operations. We continue to condemn rocket fire and call for its cessation, and on all parties to maintain calm and strictly observe international humanitarian law.

16. We continue to receive reports of smuggling of weapons supplied from within the region. Egypt is maintaining its efforts as all states are called on to do in Security Council resolution 1860. Egypt is also seizing explosives and installing metal sheeting in areas along its border with Gaza. These efforts further underscore the vital importance of the opening of all legitimate crossings for imports and exports as envisaged in the 2005 Movement and Access Agreement and in resolution 1860.

17. The Israeli closure of Gaza remains in place. This counter-productive policy is empowering smugglers and militants, destroying legitimate commerce, and causing unacceptable hardship for the civilian population, more than half of whom are children.

18. During the reporting period, food and hygiene products comprised 84% of imports, and a weekly average of 561 trucks entered the Strip – slightly more than the previous reporting period, but far short of the weekly average of 2,087 trucks before the Hamas takeover in June 2007. Cooking gas supplies met only 48% of estimated weekly needs during the reporting period. We take positive note of the entry of a slightly wider range of materials, such as glass, electricity spare parts, and one elevator for a maternity hospital. The first phase of the Northern Gaza wastewater treatment plant project was completed in late January. We also note that the export of cut flowers and strawberries continued.

19. However, the scale and quantity of goods entering Gaza through the Israeli crossings, as well as the level of exports, remains far short of requirements. Sufficient materials to re-start civilian reconstruction are still not entering Gaza through the Israeli crossings. We again express our disappointment that there has been no satisfactory Israeli response to the UN’s proposal to complete stalled projects for housing, schools and health facilities. We also continue to be concerned about fuel shortages at the Gaza power plant as a result of funding shortfalls and technical failures, leading to rolling blackouts.

Mr. President,

20. Turning to the regional situation, we deplore the heightened and belligerent rhetoric during the reporting period and call for its cessation.

21. We continue to support all efforts to revive the Israeli-Syrian track and a broader resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as envisaged in Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. The situation in the occupied Syrian Golan remained calm despite continued settlement activity.

22. In Lebanon, on 14 February, a large rally took place in Beirut to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others. On that occasion, leaders of the 14 March coalition commemorated Mr. Hariri’s contribution to Lebanon’s development and reaffirmed their determination to establish the truth behind his murder. Prime Minister Saad Hariri emphasized the importance of national unity and Lebanon’s role with regard to inter-Arab reconciliation. In a statement, the Secretary-General said that he stood with the people of Lebanon, and he reaffirmed the commitment of the United Nations to the efforts of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

23. On 15 February clashes between members of radical Islamist movements and members of Fatah broke out in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el Hilweh, near Saida. At least one person was killed as a result of the fighting before calm was restored to the camp. This incident disrupted an otherwise generally calm situation in the camps.

24. Even as progress is being made in the reconstruction of the Nahr el Bared refugee camp, funding remains a major concern. The United Nations urges the international community to renew its financial support to the reconstruction of Nahr el Bared so that progress can be sustained.

25. The situation in the area of operations of UNIFIL remains quiet. On 31 January 2009, the IDF apprehended a 17-year old Lebanese shepherd in the vicinity of Kafr Shouba, alleging he had crossed south of the Blue Line. On 1 February, the civilian was handed over to UNIFIL who, in turn, handed him to the Lebanese authorities. An investigation is ongoing into the incident.

26. Israeli overflights have continued on an almost daily basis, with a marked increase on several days in early February.

Mr. President,

27. We remain deeply concerned at the current stalemate. We call for the resumption of talks on final status issues, implementation of Roadmap commitments, continued efforts to improve economic and security conditions, and a different and more positive approach to Gaza. We remain committed to an end to the occupation that began in 1967 and an end to the conflict, through the creation of an independent Palestinian State living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security, and comprehensive regional peace, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, previous agreements, the Roadmap, and the Arab Peace Initiative.

Thank you Mr. President.

To View The Brief as PDF (32 KB)

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.

GENEVA, 9 March (UN Information Service) -- The United Nations International Meeting on the Question of Palestine this morning heard a number of panellists discuss the responsibility of governments and intergovernmental organizations in upholding international law in relation to the implementation of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Georges Abi-Saab, Honorary Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said States had an obligation to do something to deter a violation such as the building of the wall by cutting off the funds used for that construction. International organizations, particularly the financial institutions, also had an obligation to refrain from contributing to the illegality of measures that could violate international obligations.

Pieter H.F. Bekker, former ICJ Staff Lawyer and Senior Counsel to Palestine in the ICJ Advisory Proceeding, noted that the Court had concluded that the obligations violated by Israel’s construction of the wall were essentially of an erga omnes character. In other words, they were obligations in whose protection all States had a legal interest and which constituted intransgressible principles, or “super-rules”, of customary international law. Thus, existing and aspiring nations alike should strive to uphold the primacy of the ruling.

Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Professor of Public Law at the University of Paris VII, echoed a similar analysis, saying that the opinion on the illegality of the construction of the wall had an erga omnes character -– having consequences not only to Israel or Palestine, but also to other States and international organizations. The Court had recalled the obligations of all States relating to the issue, thus the opinion, although it was an advisory one, was a declarative law destined to all subjects of international law.

Michael Lynk, Professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario, said the placement of the wall almost entirely within the West Bank, and away from the Green Line, had very much to do with maximizing the inclusion of as many of the large settlements as possible on the Israeli side of the wall.

Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ had marked a milestone in the Middle East conflict. For the first time, the international community could count on a fundamental legal analysis of the conflict, which was pronounced by the principal legal body of the United Nations.

In the debate that followed the presentations by the legal experts, representatives of Jordan, the League of Arab States, Congo, Madagascar, Indonesia and Algeria took the floor, as well speakers for the following non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Humanitarian Centre in Palestine, Human Rights Group in Palestine, Centre of Human Rights of Jerusalem, and French Platform of Non-Governmental Organizations for Palestine.

The International Meeting, which is convened by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, will meet today from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to discuss the role of parliaments and civil society in advocating adherence to international law. A closing session of the two-day meeting will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Statements

GEORGES ABI-SAAB, Honorary Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said the International Court of Justice was clear in its findings on the implication of the issue in question, which had facilitated the work of governments and intergovernmental organizations. The Court had reminded the international community in its Advisory Opinion that there were regular rules and rules that created obligations. The building of the wall had undermined the Palestinian right to self-determination, which Israel had violated. The obligation emanating from humanitarian law had also been violated by the State. The result of the violation of the obligations could not be consolidated by time and could not create another status.

It was important that the Court established its findings. All States should recognize their obligations. States also had the obligation to do something to deter the violation of the building of the wall by cutting off the funds used for that construction. International organizations, particularly the financial institutions, had the obligation to refrain from contributing to the illegality of measures that could violate international obligations. Public opinion also played an important role in putting pressure on respective States to act in accordance with international law.

PIETER H.F. BEKKER, former ICJ Staff Lawyer and Senior Counsel to Palestine in the ICJ Advisory Proceeding, New York, said the Advisory Opinion issued by the Court raised important questions about the legal status of the ruling and the principle of the primacy of international law. There was nothing “anti-Israel” or “pro-Palestine” about supporting that principle. There also was nothing inconsistent about condemning suicide bombings and colonial settlements in occupied territory simultaneously, as he did. To be clear, nobody questioned Israel's right to protect its citizens against violent attacks that the Palestinian leadership unequivocally had condemned, so long as Israel complied with international law.

International law included both regular norms and obligations of a higher order. The Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 differed from other non-binding rulings in that it featured key findings on the highest-ranking norms of international law. The Court concluded that the obligations violated by Israel’s construction of the wall were essentially of an erga omnes character. In other words, they were obligations in whose protection all States had a legal interest and which constituted intransgressible principles, or “supper-rules”, of customary international law. The Court’s findings in the wall opinion were rooted in international law and had the strength of that law. The ruling constituted a most powerful reminder that the question of Palestine, in all its aspects, was subject to international law. Existing and aspiring nations alike should strive to uphold its primacy.

MONIQUE CHEMILLIER-GENDREAU, Professor of Public Law at the University of Paris VII, Paris, said Israel had tried to oppose the competence of the International Court of Justice by pretending that its consultative procedures could be diverted to settle a bilateral conflict in which Israel had refused to go towards a legal settlement of the issue. The Court, rejecting that argument, had put the consequences of its findings beyond the two principal protagonists in the conflict. The legal consequences of the Advisory Opinion did not concern only the General Assembly, which had requested the Court for its opinion. The opinion on the illegality of the construction of the wall had an erga omnes character -- having consequences not only to Israel or Palestine, but also to other States and international organizations. The Court had recalled the obligations of all States relating to the issue. The opinion, although it was an advisory one, was a declarative law destined to all subjects of international law.

The Advisory Opinion had reminded all States of their obligations. The obligations incumbent on Israel had been clearly enumerated in detail. The opinion had indicated the massive and prolonged violation of the international law by Israel by building the wall of separation. The building of the wall had violated the right to self-determination of Palestinians, including international humanitarian law relative to human rights. The Court had called on Israel to provide compensation to the victims affected by the damage caused by its actions. The Court had also urged Palestine to respect international humanitarian law. In spite of the Advisory Opinion, the building of the wall had continued.

MICHAEL LYNK, Professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario in Ontario, said the Advisory Opinion had provided clarity to the conflict in the Middle East. If there were no settlements, there would be no need for the wall, at least on the route where it was being built. The placement of the wall almost entirely within the West Bank, and away from the Green Line, had very much to do with maximizing the inclusion of as many of the large settlements as possible on the Israeli side of the wall.

The Israeli political authorities and the Israeli High Court had differing opinions with regard to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. The High Court had decided that the occupied territories were governed by political considerations and that territories could be used for security reasons. The High Court had also allowed in the past the building of fences by the military command while looking at the needs and necessities of the local population. The argument of the Government that the occupation was temporary was accepted by the High Court. In addition, the same court had never pronounced on the legality or illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territory.

MARCELO G. KOHEN, Professor of Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice had marked a milestone in the Middle East conflict. For the first time, the international community could count on a fundamental legal analysis of the conflict, which was pronounced by the principal legal body of the United Nations. The Opinion had even gone beyond the concrete issue of the illegality of the construction of the wall by pronouncing on the impossibility of forceful acquisition of land, the right to self-determination of Palestinians, the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the determination of territorial occupation of the West Bank, illegal settlements and the right of Israel to defend its citizens through the respect for international law. The Court of Justice had clearly established the illegality of the settlements by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. The construction of the wall of separation, decided unilaterally by the Government of Israel, could not be taken as a provisional boundary.

The representative of Jordan observed that the Court had reiterated the violation of Israel of international customary law. The Court had unequivocally reiterated the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territory. He welcomed the election that took place in Palestine that led to the election of Mahmoud Abbas as President. The commitments and understandings made in the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit should be implemented by both parties. Israel had continued to include territories and properties belonging to Jordan and Palestine by expanding its occupation. The peace process that was reinitiated recently should lead to a durable peace in the region.

The representative of the League of Arab States said the continued Israeli violation of the human rights of the Palestinians and other Arabs in the occupied territories had drawn the attention of the international community. Among the multiple violations, the construction of the wall of separation had encircled the Palestinians in their own territories. All States should respect the Opinion of the International Court of Justice. In spite of the Advisory Opinion and the General Assembly resolution, Israel had continued implementing its plan of construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and other Palestinian territories.

Discussion

Following the presentations made by the panellists, participants raised questions on a number of issues. Some speakers said efforts should be made to urge the European Union to apply legal actions with regard to the conflict. The free trade system of the Union, which did not restrict materials exported to Israel, had benefited that State which had imported construction materials used to expand the wall.

A speaker asked whether Article 7 of the United Nations Charter could be applicable to reinforce the law and to end the conflict in the Middle East. He also asked if the peacekeeping mission could be reinforced in the region.

A speaker from a Palestinian non-governmental organization said the “443” road built by Israel did not allow Palestinians to use it and any Palestinian driving or even walking on it could be fined. In addition, since three years and half, a number of villages in the West Bank had been closed off. Some Israeli legal authorities still believed that the occupied territories were “liberated territories” which made the situation more complicated.

The lack of application of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territory was also commented on by a number of speakers who said the inapplicability of the Convention by Israel had made people in the occupied territory suffer.

Reacting, a panellist said the fact that there was no mechanism for the full application of the Geneva Conventions did not mean that the Palestinians were fully deprived of their rights. Without the Geneva Conventions, Palestinians would have been deprived of even more rights under occupation. This was a congenital defect for all international laws as they did not have an implementing arm. Another panellist said the General Assembly had no coercive means to implement its resolutions. Israel had so far rejected the validity of international law applicable to it.

The Secretary-General made the following statement while talking to Palestnian Rights Committee

Following is today’s statement by Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the opening of the 2004 session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People:

In the wake of yesterday’s terrible tragedy in Madrid I would like to reiterate my profound and most heartfelt sympathy to King Juan Carlos I of Spain, to the Government and people of Spain, and to the families and friends of the people who were killed and injured.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in observing a minute of silence in memory of the innocent victims of this tragedy.

The situation between the Palestinians and Israelis remains extremely tense. There has been no discernible progress in peace efforts. The goal of the Palestinians -- an end to the occupation and the establishment of an independent State of Palestine -- is still out of reach. The hope of the Israelis for security is yet to be realized.

Instead, the situation on the ground has once again been shaken by a wave of violence. Israeli incursions into Palestinian cities, arrests, house demolitions, closures and curfews have continued. Targeted assassinations have resumed. Their victims have not only been their intended targets -- tragically, many civilians going about their daily lives in the crowded streets have also been killed.

Over the last few years Palestinian terrorist attacks have claimed many innocent civilian lives in Israel. There is no justification for such crimes. Efforts to achieve a comprehensive ceasefire, which would help prevent such horrific acts, have so far produced no results.

Palestinians are dismayed to see more and more of their land being taken to make way for the expansion of the barrier, the construction of which has generated heated protests, adding to Palestinian anger and desperation.

The death toll since September 2000 continues to climb. It has now reached over 3,000 Palestinians and over 900 Israelis dead. Thousands more have been wounded. Most of those killed have been civilians, many of them children.

The price already paid by both Israelis and Palestinians has been far too high. Let us waste no more time. There is an urgent need for a negotiated settlement to this deadly conflict.

The lack of any tangible progress towards a peaceful settlement has raised the level of hopelessness and despair among ordinary Palestinians and Israelis. Frustrated by the stalemate in the peace process, civil society has begun exploring possible pathways that could stimulate peacemaking and push the process forward. Late last year, the Geneva Initiative and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh statement of principles sent a powerful message that differences could be bridged and that a dialogue was possible.

But only a clear political resolve on the part of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships will break the impasse and restart the process. Attempts by either side to resolve this drawn-out conflict unilaterally could actually foment more anger and violence. There is no substitute for the two parties sitting down and working out with each other the details of an agreement that both peoples can live with.

The “Road Map”, launched in 2002, was accepted by both parties. It enjoys broad support from the international community. Based on Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, it remains the most practical way of achieving the aspirations of both sides. In resolution 1515, the Council further bolstered support for the Road Map. The objective of the resolution is clear -– two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

Today, I call on both parties to take immediate and specific steps to implement the plan without preconditions. I urge the Palestinian Authority to take resolute action to halt terror attacks by militant groups against Israelis. Meanwhile, I urge the Israeli Government to halt further settlement expansion and the construction of the barrier. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s announcement of a plan to evacuate the Gaza Strip settlements is encouraging. I look forward to seeing a timetable for that. An evacuation of Gaza strip settlements should be seen as part of a broader process, an interim step that could revitalize stalled peace efforts, consistent with the Road Map.

For its part, the international community should assert itself to help the two sides out of the present deadlock. For their part, representatives of the Quartet must try harder to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.

The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee met in Rome last December to secure financial assistance for the Palestinian people, who continue to endure a devastating economic and humanitarian crisis. The Special Coordinator and the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs continue their work, as do other United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the World Food Programme, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund-– some of them with limited resources, and all under extremely difficult conditions. International help is particularly crucial at this time. The United Nationswill continue its work, but it needs the international community to give generously.

This Committee has an important role to play in efforts to reach our common goals. I thank you for your continued commitment to peace in the Middle East, and I wish you success in carrying out your mandate.

The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has asked Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz for a thorough probe of the circumstances surrounding the death of British aid worker Iain Hook, who was fatally wounded by an Israeli soldier in the Jenin refugee camp last month.

Mr. Annan's request came during a meeting with the Defence Minister in New York on Monday. The two exchanged views on the current difficult situation in the Middle East as well as a number of pressing UN-Israel issues, including the recent killing of Mr. Hook and two other staff members of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), according to a read-out of the talks provided by the Secretary-General's spokesman.

"The Secretary-General reiterated that he expected from the Government of Israel a rigorous investigation of Mr. Hook's killing and that the United Nations would be provided with a written report," the spokesman reported.

Mr. Annan also stressed the need to ensure security and improved access for the staff of UNRWA and other international humanitarian personnel in the occupied Palestinian territory. While welcoming the Israeli Government's recent transfer of approximately $28 million in tax revenues owed to the Palestinian Authority, he stressed the need to take other practical steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians, according to the spokesman.

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they remembers.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.