Special Elections

Calls for Olmert to step down began in 2007, after elements of the scathing Winograd Commission report were leaked, asserting mismanagement of the Lebanese conflict.  Olmert managed to deflect the calls for his resignation until the middle of 2008, when cries of corruption became deafening and internal Kadima opinions regarding his suitability began to match the increasing public demand for his resignation, which peaked as high as 80%.

In July of 2008, Olmert announced that he would resign once a new Kadima leader was found.  Livni, a harsh critic of Olmert won the Kadima election, and was given six weeks to form a coalition government.  When Livni failed to capture the support of many of the minority parties, elections were scheduled for February of 2009.  Olmert has presided over the provisional government for the last five months, since October of 2008.

The Tenor of the Campaigns

Since Sharon’s departure from Likud to start Kadima, many pundits placed the future and legitimacy of the Kadima party strictly on his shoulders.  However, Kadima won handedly in 2006, despite Sharon’s stroke, largely on the platform of Palestinian negotiations, and Sharon’s highly controversial disengagement strategy.  Kadima relied heavily on the US backed Annapolis talks, which much of the Israeli public has seen as a failure in light of seeming perpetual rocket fire from Gaza into northwestern Negev.

It goes without saying that the issue of national security is dominating the upcoming elections, and has set the cadence and tenor of each party’s campaign.  A Likud win is increasingly likely, no doubt bolstered by Israeli public support for more aggressive stance on security.  In fact, certain polls show almost ubiquitous support (94%) by the Israeli public for the Gazan offensive.  Kadima’s opposition, not just Likud, is critical of Kadima for the IDF’s early withdrawal from Gaza before the stated objectives had been met.

The Likud Theme

The Likud Constitution from the 15th Knesset is the one that is most often cited, and referenced.  Although Likud’s policies have softened in many ways rhetorically, including certain statements regarding the possibility of a Palestinian state, the change in tone has been mostly semantic.  Likud has had multiple opportunities to revise their stance, including the adoption of a more moderate “defensible borders” plan in 2006, but the policies have remained largely the same.

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.

Although the Likud parted ways from this stance under the leadership of the likes of Sharon, these countervailing paradigms eventually splintered Likud, and caused Sharon to leave and start Kadima.  This allowed Likud to snap back, and realign with their ‘99 platform under the leadership of Netanyahu, who had long been critical of the concessions made in Oslo, the unilateral disengagement by Sharon, and of any concessions regarding Jerusalem.  However, both Sharon and Netanyahu supported the erection of a dividing wall, and also considered Oslo dead.

In the platform for the upcoming elections, Likud’s stance is a bit more of opaque.  Leading up to the elections, Netanyahu refused to sign an oath against the possibility of a Palestinian State, but has been staunchly against it’s creation in the current climate.

“Any Palestinian state that would be formed under the current conditions would become an Iranian state as we saw happen in Gaza,” Netanyahu said. “[But] we all must work to advance peace while considering reality.”

Critics, however, say that this is only a rhetorical move that prevents a Likud platform that would potentially conflict or frustrate relations with the nascent Obama administration.

Netanyahu’s associates said he did not want to govern a single Palestinian, but under certain circumstances, he would agree to a state with limited sovereignty and powers.

Many of the discussions regarding the peace process are centered around the West Bank regions, but the future of Gaza is never explicitly referenced.  Fatah’s recognition by world forces has, up to this point, rested on the notion that they were the representative body of a unified Palestine, however, the de facto administrative split of Gaza and West Bank confound this relationship.  With Fatah’s popularity and bargaining power on the decline, and a perpetual civil war between Hamas and Fatah, the feasibility of a two state solution is called into question.  In many ways, Hamas’ bloody coup did more damage to the possibility of peace than anything that has happened within the last ten years.

Likud and Palestine

Likud’s attitude towards Palestine can be gleaned more from the rhetoric of their campaign than from their platform.  Most recently, Netanyahu has accused Kadima of desiring sweeping concessions, and desiring a return to the 1967 borders.  In light of this, they would certainly be a large change in policy for Likud to make regional concessions during peace negotiations.

Hamas senior leadership, including Meshal, Haniyeh and Zahar, since winning the election in 2006, have rejected the terms set forth by the Madrid Quartet - recognition of Israel, abandonment of violence, and respect for preexisting diplomatic agreements.  However, there seems to be evidence that pragmatists might be gaining a voice within the party.

Three Hamas leaders interviewed by AP said they would accept statehood in just the West Bank and Gaza and would give up their “resistance” against Israel if that were achieved.

“We accept a state in the ‘67 borders,” said Hamad. “We are not talking about the destruction of Israel.”

Haniyeh has been quoted as having the same sentiments, but ‘67 borders were never a matter of discussion. Whether this signifies a change in policies of Hamas has yet to be seen.  But, until senior leadership concurs with this notion, and makes strides towards the Quartet’s terms, and Likud, if successful in the election, changes its stance regarding certain concessions, there will be no peaceful resolution in the near future.  There has been evidence that much of the more moderate Hamas politicians have been silenced, and the hardline rhetoric promulgated forth.

Likud and Settlements

One of the most controversial elements of the Likud platform is their stance on settlements.  Although traditionally, Likud has been supportive of new settlements, Netanyahu has recently expressed support for only the expansion of preexisting settlements as necessary for “natural growth”, not for new settlements.

“I have no intention of building new settlements in the West Bank,” Netanyahu told Mr Blair in quotes carried by Haaretz newspaper.

“But like all the governments there have been until now, I will have to meet the needs of natural growth in the population. I will not be able to choke the settlements.”

Netanyahu has been extremely critical of Livni on the subject of settlements, even accusing Kadima of giving up Jerusalem.  This has been a standing theme of Likud’s election rhetoric.

Whether Netanyahu will remove some of the settlements in the West Bank remains to be seen.  He has only expressly rejected the notion of unilateral removal of settlements, but has not outright rejected the possibility of settlement removal as part of a compromise.

Likud Security Plan

Netanyahu’s security plan for Israel has been expressed as “economic peace”, although this plan references Gaza in little regard.

Israel should be focusing its efforts instead on helping Abu Mazen and Fayad improve the day-to-day lives of Palestinians. In particular, we should be trying to help them rapidly develop their economy. While this will not resolve the conflict, it can create an environment in which negotiations would have a better chance of succeeding. A Likud-led government will immediately focus on a serious and sustained effort to fundamentally change the situation on the ground.

Specifically, this references the use of Palestinian labor for settlement maintenance and building, as well as Palestinian employment in Israeli factories and businesses in the West Bank.  The plan is based on the notion that much of the Palestinian dissidence is resulting from their socio-economic status, and that a bolstered economy would lower the temperature of the issues involved.  This plan has come under heavy fire by the opposition, citing the improbability of industry to flourish in the West Bank given the current political climate.

But to export, one needs access to markets. No entrepreneur will build a plant unless he knows for certain that his merchandise will reach clients, and that his raw materials and workers will reach the plant, on time.

The restrictions of movement in the territories, and with Israel and the rest of the world, mean that this is not the case. No wonder, then, that Palestinian exports are barely what they were 20 years ago.

Likud and Iran

Likud has always taken a characteristically hostile stand on Iran, however, if placement on their platform is any indication, it will play a large theme in the months ahead.  There has been speculation regarding the possibility of an Israeli attack against Iran.  Likud considers Iran to be an existential threat to Israel, and handles it as such.

Twelve years later, Iran is closer than ever to achieving nuclear capability, a situation that would at once pose an existential threat to the State of Israel and radically change the balance of power in our region, thus endangering the entire world.

With Iran’s new found interest in the region, Egypt’s future in question, Arab reluctance for a power play in its own backyard, and increasing popular discontent with Arab leadership, the existing infrastructure might soon find itself at a precarious precipice.  Israel, US, EU largely consider their security apparatus as reliant on Egyptian and Arab support, but a further decline of the situation in the middle east might catalyze a change in policy.

Going Forward

It remains to be seen what the outcome will be for the special elections.  Even if Likud wins, the margin will most likely not be large enough to hold power without a coalition with other parties.  In Israeli elections, votes are tallied for parties, not specific individuals.  The party that receives the most parliamentary votes gets the nod to create their own government.

Livni, for the first time in Israeli history, failed to create a government coalition, which led to the special election.  Even if Netanyahu wins, he will most likely find himself with around 30 seats, which means a coalition with more moderate parties might be in store.  If the recent polls are any indication, regardless of who wins, the Israeli public seems to be demanding more agreessive action by their government.  How this plays out remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain - the next twenty four months will have plenty of news from the middle east coming over the wires.

Hamas Charter

The charter that is most often referenced is that of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).  A political group started in the eighties with the overarching intent of liberating Palestine.  Relevant portions of the Hamas charter are as follows:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

The intents, and methods of Hamas are clear.  However, it would be irresponsible not to at least point out that the calls for the destruction of Israel were removed from the Hamas election platform.  In fact, the Hamas election platform supports a Palestine, and thus two state solution, with respect to the 1967 borders, which are often used as a standard during peace negotiations.  The platform only calls directly for the elimination of the occupation, and not the destruction of the Israeli state.

Fatah Charter

Because of Fatah’s recent interest in working with Israel, US and EU towards a resolution, their charter has often gone unacknowledged, and is considered moderate when compared to Hamas.  However, if we are to give credence to Hamas’ charter, especially in light of the changes they made to their election platform, it would only be fair to consider the Fatah charter as well.

Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

This might seem fairly innocuous at first, and could be interpreted to mean the eradication of Zionist influence within Palestine, however, the true meaning is elucidated further down.

Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.

In fact, the charter further references the desire for Jerusalem to be the capital city, which is of disputed territory as well.

If taken at face value, although the language is not as strong regarding the methods by which to procure the Palestinian state - the intentions of Fatah could not be clearer.

Likud Platform

One charter that rarely is referenced is the platform of Likud.  This charter is important, if not more important than the charters of Hamas and Fatah, because the peace process is often defined by the demands of Israel.

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.

Based on the Likud charter, Israel refuses to recognize an autonamous and sovereign Palestinian state, but more so, refuses to recognize an established Palestinian state west of the Jordan river, which would make Gaza a particular region of interest during negotiations.

It is important when analyzing the different interests involved, that each group is researched with equanimity.  Fair and equitable analysis is vital to a resolution in the current Mid-East crisis.

16:19 ET
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Stations:

The use of “al” in Arabic names varies from country to country, and even within families. Some Arabs use “Al”; others use “al”. Some separate the “al” from the following name with a space or a hyphen. Some Arabs use “el” instead of “al.”

The AP’s practice is to use the common accepted form on well-known names or the form preferred by an individual.

AP Broadcast News Center

News

A

Mahmoud Abbas -- mah-MOOD' ah-BAHS' 

Mahmoud Abdel-Baset -- mah-MOOD' ab-DEHL'-BA'-set 

Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman -- shayk OH'-mahr AHB'-dehl RAHK'-mahn 

King Abdullah -- ab-DUHL'-uh 

Mumia Abu-Jamal  -- moo-MEE'-ah ah-BOO' jah-MAHL' 

Aden -- AYD'-n (Like the word "aid" with the "n" sound blended into the 

"d") 

Afghanistan -- af-gahn'-ih-STAHN' (slightly less stress on "gahn") (the 

westernized pronunciation af-GAN'-ih-stan is also acceptable.) 

Gul Agha -- gool AH'-guh   

John Agwunobi -- a-gwuh-NOH'-bee 

Ahmedabad -- AHM'-duh-BAHD' 

Mohamed Hussein Aidid -- ah-DEED' 

Aiko -- eye-koh 

Mullah Mohammed Hasan Akhund -- MOO'-lah moh-HAHM'-ed hah-SUHN'

uh-HOOND' ("oo in HOOND as in "food")

Al-, al-, al

Al-Barakaat -- ahl-BAHR'-uh-kaht 

Jamal Al-Fadl -- ahl-FAHD'-uhl   

Saud al-Faisal -- sah-OOD' ahl fy-ZAHL' 

Farouk Ali -- fah-ROOK' ah-LEE' 

Fadhil Al-Khaledy -- FAH'-deel ahl-KUH'-lay-dee 

Nabil Al-Marabh -- nuh-BEEL' ahl-muh-RAHB' 

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi -- AHB'-dehl BAH'-seht AH'-lee

ahl-meh-GRAH'-hee 

Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali -- 

    moh-HAH'-mehd rah-SHEED' dah-ood ahl-oh-WAHL'-ee 

Al-Qaida -- al-KY'-ee-duh 

Al Sayd -- al-sah-HOOD' ("oo" as in "food") 

Ayman al-Zawahri -- uh-MEEN' al-zawl-HEHR'-ee (last two syllables sound 

like the name "Harry") 

Aaliyah -- uh-LEE'-uh

Am to Az

Haron Amin -- hah-ROHN' ah-MEEN' 

Kofi Annan -- KOH'-fee AN'-nan 

Aqaba -- AH'-kuh-bah 

Aracaju -- ah-ruh-kuh-ZHOO' 

Hanan Ashrawi -- HAH'-nahn ash-ROW'-ee 

Bashar Assad -- bah-SHAHR' AH'-sahd   

Mohammed Atef -- AH'-tehf 

Azerbaijan -- ah-zur-by-JAHN' 

Tariq Aziz -- TAH'-rihk ah-ZEEZ' 

Jose Maria Aznar -- AHS'-nahr

B

Ahmed Badawi -- AH'-mehd buh-DAH'-wee 

Herman Badillo -- bah-DEE'-yoh 

Bagram -- bah-GRAHM' 

John Baldacci -- bal-DAH'-chee 

Bamiyan -- BAH'-mee-ahn 

Ehud Barak -- EH'-hud bah-RAHK' 

Behawalpur -- beh-HAH'-wahl-poor 

Beit Hanoun -- bayt ha-NOON' 

Shlomo Ben-Ami -- SHLOH'-moh ben-ah-MEE' 

Binyamin Ben-Eliezer -- behn-yah-MEEN' behn-ahl-ee-EH'-zahr 

Eliahu Ben-Elissar -- ehl-ee-ah-HOO' ben-ehl-ee-ZAHR' 

Osama bin Laden -- oh-SAH'-muh bin-LAH'-din 

Alwaleed Bin Talal -- al-wa-LEED' bin TAL'-al 

Bishkek -- BIHSH'-kehk 

Enrique Bolanos -- boh-LAN'-yohs 

La Bouche -- boosh 

Richard Boucher -- BOW'-chur 

Abdelaziz Bouteflika -- ahb-DUL'-ah-ZEEZ' boot-uh-FLEE'-kuh 

Lakhdar Brahimi -- LAHK'-dahr bra-HEE'-mee 

Agus Budiman -- AH'-goos boo-DEE'-mahn 

Gracia Burhnam -- GRAY'-shuh

C

Chau Takhay -- chow tak-how 

Chechnya -- CHECH'-nyah 

Chen Shui-bian -- jehn shwee bee-ehn 

Jacques Chirac -- zhahk shih-RAHK' 

Ciprofloxacin -- sih-proh-FLAK'-sihn 

Ciudad del Este -- see-yoo-DAHD' dehl EH'-stay 

William Costopoulos -- kah-STAHP'-uh-lihs

D

Tom Daschle -- DASH'-uhl 

Dhahran -- dah-RAHN' 

Dashst-i-Qula -- dash-tee-kah-LAH' 

Vladimir Dezhurov -- deh-ZH00R'-ahf 

Donald DiFrancesco -- dee-fran-SEHS'-koh 

Dornoch -- DOHR'-nahk 

Doxycycline -- dahk-sih-SY'-kleen 

Dushanbe -- duh-shahn-BAY' 

Dynegy -- DY'-nuh-jee

E

Ehime Maru -- eh-hee-mee mah-roo 

Wadih El-Hage -- WAH'-dee ehl-HAHJ' 

Mounir El Motassadeq -- moo-neer ehl mah-tuh-SAD'-uhk 

Saeb Erekat -- sah-EEB' EHR'-ih-kaht

F

Fatah -- fah-TAH' 

Anthony Fauci -- FOW'-chee 

Ahmad Fawzi -- FOW'-zee 

Lamen Khalifa Fhimah -- LAH'-mehn kah-LEE'-fah feh-HEE'-mah 

Ari Fleischer -- AHR'-ee FLY'-shur 

Toniu Fonoti -- toh-NYOO' foh-noh-TEE' 

Vicente Fox -- vih-SEN'-tay 

Alberto Fujimori -- foo-jee-MOHR'-ee 

Keiji Fukuda -- kay-jee foo-koo-dah

G

Gabon -- ga-BOHN' 

Moammar Gadhafi -- MOO'-ah-mahr gah-DAH'-fee 

Yale Galanter -- yayl guh-LAN'-tur 

Rakesh Gangwal -- rah-KESH' GAHN'-gwahl 

Genovese -- JEH'-noh-veez 

Ghanikheil -- GAH'-nikh-ay-ehl 

Ghowr -- GOR 

Giotto -- ZHAH'-toh 

Raanan Gissin -- rah-NAHN' gis-EEN' 

Goshen -- GOH'-shuhn 

Hamid Gul -- HAH'-mihd gool

H

Hadera,  Israel  -- hah-DEHR'-uh 

Haifa -- HY'-fuh 

Hamas -- hah-MAHS' 

Farid Hamayoun --HAH'-may-yoon 

Ahmed Hannan -- AH'-mehd hah-NAHN' 

Mahmoud Abu Hanoud -- mah-MOOD' ah-boo hah-NOOD' 

Mokhtar Haouari -- MOHK'-tahr how-AHR'-ee 

Abdul Haq -- ahb-DOOL' hahk 

Hebron -- HEH'-bruhn 

Herat -- hay-RAHT' 

Hezbollah -- HEZ'-buh-lah' (slightly less stress on "lah") 

Liban Hussein -- LEE'-bahn hoo-SAYN' 

Faisal Husseini -- FY'-suhl hoo-SAY'-nee

I

Damir Igric -- duh-MEER' EE'-grich 

Imam -- EE'-mahm 

Islamabad -- ihs-LAH'-muh-bahd' (Slight stress on final syllable, not

as strong as stress on second syllable)   

Darrell Issa -- EYE'-suh 

Igor Ivanov -- EE'-gohr ee-VAHN'-awf

J

Jabir Air Base -- jeh-BEER' 

Jacobabad -- jak-oh-ba-BAHD'    

Jalalabad -- ju-LAH'-lah-bahd (The vowel sound in "ju" is similar to

the double-o sound in "took") 

Beit Jalla -- bayt JAH'-lah 

Qatradullah Jamal -- kwah-trah-DOOL'-ah jah-MAL' 

JDAM -- JAY'-dam (Joint Direct Attack Munition) 

Jenin -- juh-NEEN' 

Kajal Jhaveri -- KAH'-jihl jah-VEHR'-ee 

Jiang Zemin -- jahng zuh-MEEN' 

Jihad -- jih-HAHD' 

Steve Jobs -- jahbz

K

Kabul -- kah-BOOL' (though the pronunciation KAH'-bool is also common) 

Kach -- KAHKH 

Kalai-Zal -- kah-LAY'-zahl 

Kandahar -- kan'-duh-HAHR' (slight stress on first syllable; stronger

stress on third syllable) 

Karachi -- kuh-RAH'-chee 

Karam -- KAR'-uhm 

Islam Karimov -- EES'-lahm kah-REE'-mahv 

Hamid Karzai -- HAH'-mihd KAHR'-zeye 

King Khalid Military City -- KAHL'-ihd 

Ali Khamenei -- hah-meh-neh-EE' 

Mohammad Khatami -- HAHT'-ah-mee 

Khost -- hohst (heavy stress on first "h") 

Khyber Pass -- KY'-bur  

Kwame Kilpatrick -- KWAH'-mee 

Kim Dae-jung -- kihm day-joong 

Kim Jong Il -- kihm jawng eel  

Khobar -- KOH'-bahr 

Koenigswinter -- KOO'-nihgz-veen-ter 

Junichiro Koizumi -- joon-ee-chee-roh koh-ay-zoo-mee   

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- KOH'-lur koh-TEL'-ee 

Leonid Kuchma -- KOOCH'-mah 

Kunar -- ku-NAHR' (The vowel sound in "ku" is similar to the double-o

sound in "took") 

Kunduz -- KUHN'-dooz 

Kyrgyzstan -- KEHR'-gih-stahn

L

Landstuhl -- LAWND'-shtool 

Gerald Levin -- luh-VIN' 

Chandra Levy -- SHAHN'-druh LEE'-vee 

Likud -- lee-KOOD' 

Ottilie Lundgren -- AH'-tih-lee

M

Imam Mahdi -- EE'-mahm MAH'-dee 

Masako -- mah-sah-koh 

Mazar-e-Sharif -- mu-ZAHR'-eh-sheh-REEF' (The vowel sound in "mu" is

similar to the double-o sound in "took") 

Megawati Sukarnoputri -- meh-ga-WAH'-tee soo-kahr-noh-POOT'-rih 

Anwar Mehmood -- an-WEHR' mah-MOOD' 

Kweisi Mfume -- kwah-EE'-see oom-FOO'-may 

Slobodan Milosevic -- sloh-BOH'-dahn mee-LOH'-shuh-vich 

Norman Mineta -- mih-NEH'-tuh 

Daoud Mir -- dah-OOD' MEER 

Khalfan Khamis Mohamed -- KAHL'-fahn KAH'-mis moh-HAH'-med 

Mahathir Mohamed -- muh-HAH'-thihr moh-HAHM'-ed 

Yoshiro Mori -- yoh-shee-roh moh-ree 

Mosul -- MOH'-sul 

Zacarias Moussaoui -- zuh-KAR'-ee-uhs moo-SOW'-ee 

Hosni Mubarak -- HAHS'-nee moo-BAH'-rahk 

Robert Mueller -- MUHL'-ur 

Mujahedeen -- moo-jah-hid-DEEN' 

Pervez Musharraf -- pur-VEHZ' moo-SHAH'-ruhv 

Nacer Mustafa -- NAH'-sur moo-STAH'-fah 

Amir Khan Muttaqui -- mew-TAH'-kee 

Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil -- wah-KEEL' ah-MED' mut-uh-wah-KIHL'

N

naltrexone -- nal-TREKS'-ohn 

Naruhito -- nah-ROOSH'-doh 

Nauru -- NAH'-roo 

Hassan Nasrallah -- HAS'-ahn NAS'-ruh-lah 

Netanya -- neh-TAHN'-yah 

Benjamin Netanyahu -- net-an-YAH'-hoo 

Kathy Nguyen -- WIN 

Katsuya Nomoto -- kat-SOO'-yah nok-MOH'-toh 

Novosibirsk -- nuh-vuh-see-BEERSK' 

Novorossiisk -- nuh-vuh-ruh-SEESK' 

Yusuf Nuristani -- YOO'-sihf noo-ruh-STAH'-nee

O

Mohamed Sadeek Odeh -- sah-DEEK' oh-DAY' 

Ehud Olmert -- EH'-hood OHL'-murt 

Oman -- OH'-mahn 

Mullah Mohammed Omar -- MOO'-lah moh-HAHM'-ed oh-MAHR' 

Yuri Onufrienko -- oh-noo-free-ENH'-koh

P

Pasani -- puh-SAH'-nee 

Pashtun -- pahsh-TOON' 

George Pataki -- puh-TAK'-ee 

USS Peleliu -- PEH'-leh-loo 

Shimon Peres -- shee-MOHN' PEHR'-ehs 

Peshawar -- puh-SHAH'-wuhr 

Daniel Petithory -- PEH'-tih-toh-ree 

Yevgeny Primakov -- yehv-GEH'-nee PREE'-mah-kawf 

Puli Khumri Hill -- PUH'-lee kohm-REE' 

Lyudmila Putin -- lud-MEE'-luh 

Vladimir Putin -- POO'-tihn

Q

Abdul Qadir -- kah-DEER' 

Qalqilya -- kahl-KEEL'-yuh 

Younus Qanooni -- YOO'-nuhs kah-NOO'-nee 

Qatar -- KAH'-tahr 

Quetta -- kuh-WEH'-tuh

R

Burhanuddin Rabbani -- boor-HAHN'-uh-deen ruh-BAH'-nee 

Marc Racicot -- RAHS'-koh   

Hashemi Rafsanjani -- hah-SHEH'-mee rahf-sahn-JAHN'-ee 

Lotfi Raissi -- LUT'-fee RY'-see 

Ramadan -- RAH'-muh-dahn 

Ramallah -- rah-MAHL'-ah 

Abdel Aziz Al Rantissi -- AHB'-duhl ah-ZEEZ' ahl rahn-TEE'-see 

Maulana Fazal-ur Rehman -- muh-law-nuh fuhz-LOOR' VEH'-mahn 

Ahmed Ressam -- AH'-med res-AHM' 

Condoleezza Rice -- kahn-dah-LEE'-zuh 

Richard Riordan -- REER'-duhn 

Riyadh -- rhee-AHD' 

Ibrahim Rugova -- IHB'-rah-heem roo-GOH'-vah

S

Abdul Sattar -- sa-TAHR' 

Abu Sayyaf -- AH'-boo sy-YAHF' 

Gerhard Schroeder -- GEHR'-hahrd SHROH'-dur 

Sergipe -- sehr-ZHEE'-pih 

Nabil Shaath -- nah-BEEL' shahth 

Ariel Sharon -- ah-ree-EL' shah-ROHN' 

Eduard Shevardnadze -- sheh-vahrd-NAHD'-zeh  

Shindand -- SHEEN'-dehn 

Shura Council -- SHOO'-ruh 

Imam Muzammil Siddiqi -- EE'mahm MOO'-zuh-meel suh-DEE'-kee 

Michael Skakel -- SKAY'-kul 

Mohambedou Ould Slahi -- mahk-MOOD' oold slah-HEE' 

Balbir Singh Sodhi -- SOH'-dee 

Spinboldak -- SPEEN'-buhl-duhk 

Srebrenica -- SREH'-breh-neet-sah 

Srinagar -- SREE'-nuh-gur 

Brandy Stroeder -- STROH'-dur 

Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan -- shayk AKH'-med sah-'LEEM SWAY'-dahn

T

Tajikistan -- tah-JEEK'-ih-stahn 

Takhar -- tah-KAR' 

Taliban -- TAL'-ih-bahn 

Taloqan -- tahl-uh-KAHN' 

Tang Jiaxuan -- tahng zhow-shwin 

Tanzania -- tan-zuh-NEE'-uh 

Hashim Thaci -- HAH'-shihm THAH'-chee 

George Trofimoff -- TRAHF'-ih-mawf

U

Uzbekistan -- ooz-bek-ih-STAHN'

V

Atal Bihari Vajpayee -- ah-TUL' bee-HAH'-ree VAHJ'-py-ee 

Francesc Vendrell -- fran-CHESK' ven-DREL' 

Guy Verhofstadt -- vur-HOHF'-stadt

W

Steven Wiersma -- WEERZ'-muh

X, Y

Xian -- SHEE'-ahn 

Xinhua -- shin-wah) 

Xigris -- ZY'-grihs 

Daoud Yakub -- dah-OOD' YAH'-kuhb 

Yemen -- YEH'-muhn

Z

Abdul Salam Zaeef -- ahb-DOOL' sah-LAHM' zah-EEF' 

Mohammad Zaher -- ZY'-hehr 

Half and Susanne Zantop -- hahlf and soo-ZAHN'-uh 

Rehavam Zeevi -- reh-huh-VAHM' zuh-EH'-vee   

Robert Zoellick -- ZEL'-ihk 

Zhang Yuan-Yuan -- zhahng yoo-ahn yoo-ahn

SUSPECTED HIJACKERS

Here are the names of the suspected hijackers of the planes used in the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

Note that in Arabic, stressed syllables don’t tend to be stressed “hard.”

The pronouncers follow this format: Full name, name on second reference (in parentheses), pronunciation.

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11

Mohamed Atta, (Atta) -- moh-HAM'-ad AT'-ta 

Wail Alshehri, (Alshehri) -- WAH'-eyl (close to the word "while") ahl

SHE'-ree (light stress on SHE)  

Waleed M. Alshehri, (Alshehri) -- WAH'-leed ahl SHE'-ree 

Abdulaziz Alomari, (Alomari) -- ab-dool-ah-ZEEZ' ahl ohm-AR'-ee (very

light stress on AR) 

Satam al-Suqami, (al-Suqami) -- sah-TAHM' ahl soo-KAHM'-ee

UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175

Marwan al-Shehhi, (al-Shehhi) -- mar-WAHN' ahl SHE'-hee 

Fayez Ahmed, (Ahmed) -- FEYE'-ez  AH'-med 

Ahmed Alghamdi, (Alghamdi) -- AH'-med ahl HAHM'-ed-ee (HAHM more drawn

out than stressed) 

Hamza Alghamdi, (Alghamdi) -- HAHM'-zeh ahl HAHM'-ed-ee (HAHM more

drawn out than stressed) 

Mohand Alshehri, (Alshehri) -- moh-HAHN'-ed ahl SHE'-ree

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77

Hani Hanjour, (Hanjour) -- hah-nee (both syllables equally stressed)

han-joor (again, equally stressed) 

Khalid Almihdhar, (Almihdhar) -- KHAL'-led al-meh-DAHR'(almost rolling

the rr at end) 

Majed Moqed, (Moqed) -- MAH'-jed (MAH stressed in the sense of drawn

out) moo-KED'   

Nawaf Alhamzi,(Alhamzi) -- nuh-WEHF' ahl ham-ZEE' 

Salem Alhamzi,(Alhamzi) -- sah-LEEM' ahl ham-ZEE'

UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93

Ziad Samir Jarrah, (Jarrah) -- ZEYE'-ed  suh-MEER' jher-RAH' 

Saeed Alghamdi, (Alghamdi) -- SAH'-eed ahl HAHM'-ed-ee (HAHM more drawn 

out than stressed)   

Ahmed Alhaznawi, (Alhaznawi) -- AH'-med ahl HASS'-nuh-wee 

Ahmed Alnami, (Alnami) -- AH'-med ahl NAH'-mee

SPORTS

A

Shinobu Asagoe -- ah-sah-GOH'-ee 

Obafemi Ayanbadejo -- oh-bah-FEH'-mee eye-uhn-bah-DAY'-zhoo

B

Jim Boeheim -- BAY'-hym 

Scott Brosius -- BROH'-shuhs

C, D, E

Mike DeJean -- dih-ZHAHN' 

Nicolas Escude -- EHS'-koo-day

F, G

Dario Franchitti -- frahn-KIH'-tee 

Ralph Friedgen -- FREE'-jihn 

Chris Fuamatu-Ma'afala -- foo-ah-MAH'-too mah-ah-FAH'-lah 

Elvis Grbac -- GUR'-bak

H, I, J

Zydrunas Ilgauskas -- zih-DROO'-nuhs ihl-GOWS'-kuhs 

Jaromir Jagr -- YAH'-oh-meer YAH'-gur

K, L

Mike Krzyzewski -- shuh-SHEF'-skee 

Manny Legace -- LEH'-guh-see

M, N

Mark McLemore -- MAK'-lih-mohr

O, P

Michael Olowokandi -- oh-lah-wah-KAN'-dee

Q, R, S

Bud Selig -- SEE'-lihg 

Peja Stojakovic -- PAY'-zhah stoy-AH'-koh-vihch

T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

Val d'Isere -- val-dih-SEHR' 

Chris Weinke -- WEHN'-kee 

Vitali Yachmenev -- YAHK'-meh-nehv 

Amos Zeroue -- ZEHR'-oh-way 

Alex Zhamnov -- ZHAM'-nahf

Modern liberal intellectual culture is against us, against the Cross, against the God of Love. People don’t think like they used to. Values are crumbling. Tolerance has turned to license. And we must fight; we must defend our Faith. We must fight against the culture. The Church is in trouble, because culture has changed.

Basilique de Notre-Dame de Montreal -- joelmann

This line of thinking has some merit, but those should not be exaggerated. And it should be acknowledged in full sobriety that this message is usually taught to the untaught by the untaught, it is shared and lived (and indeed, sometimes lived well) among people generally not much concerned with or well versed in history (either of the Church or the culture). Their assessment is a topical assessment: it addresses, correctly, the symptom, but it does not fathom the cause. In America, we like to treat symptoms; that has become our way. Sally is sad; give her a pill. Betty is fat; give her surgery. Taxpayers are unhappy; stimulate them. Companies are failing; give them money. Kids lack the education to pass standardized tests; teach special classes on tests—but don’t worry about giving them an education in the process.  This has become our way. And it is the wrong way. And in cafes and pulpits all over the country, faithful (and unfaithful) Christians are taught that the church is hurting because the culture has changed. I don’t dispute this fact. That the sharp decline in morality, accountability, decency, and reason in America is a grievous problem is not here contested in the least; but it is not the cause of the problem. It is a symptom. If it is true that the Church is in trouble because culture has changed; it is even more true that the culture has changed because the Church is in trouble. That is the real problem.

Most of the problems that churches see in our culture are real problems, and many of those problems have their source in the very churches themselves. The unfolding of those problems has been slow, but it has also been steady. We lament today that our common morality has been thrown out the window; but it was first thrown off a steeple. When Christians, who are supposed to be witnesses to the Light in a world of darkness, begin themselves to dim, one cannot expect too much from the rest of the culture. When we remove marriage from the list of sacraments, we cannot be too surprised at high divorce rates. When our generations does not call Blessed the Mother of God, we cannot be too surprised that women our objectified. When we do not decry the death penalty for what it is (an attempt to play God with human lives), we cannot be too surprised that people would do the same with babies—after all, babies and convicted felons cast the same amount of ballots. When we are not consistent in our reasoning, we cannot be too surprised when politicians equivocate. When we interpret the Scriptures to serve our own ends, we cannot be too surprised that judges interpret the Constitution to serve theirs. When Christians do not submit to the authority of Church, we cannot be too surprised that citizens do not submit to the authority of the law.

A seed of dissent has always been buried in the Church; five hundred years ago that seed grew roots, and cracked the unity of the Church; in those five centuries, that seed has but up shoots (34,000 denominations at my last count); and in the last fifty years, those shoots have borne fruits and flowers—but they are poisonous. When the Church is not united, can we be surprised that our culture is divided?

The outrages in our culture were first permitted by some church somewhere. We compromised first. Society has not abandoned us; we have abandoned society. Christians are fools if they expect society to do anything but crumble without the influence of the Church. We lament that the pro-abortion lobby will not listen to reason; but many among the faithful abandoned reason long ago. We lament that the government does not heed the cry of the poor; but we are parking our fancy cars in gated communities. We expect the culture to answer to expectations that we do not meet. And when Christians lower the bar, can we be surprised that the culture trips?

The war is not against the culture; it is for the culture; and it is within the church. Until the voice of the faithful is truly one voice, preaching one Gospel, we will not speak in harmony, consistency, or with authority. When Christians cannot agree on what is permitted, can we expect the culture to agree on what should be prohibited? If we treat the Christian faith as something that belongs to us, then we are not truly free to give it. If we rule the faith; the faith cannot rule us.  And if we are content to let the faith lead us whichever way we want to go, we cannot be surprised if the forces that lead the culture lead it wherever they want it to go. The culture is beating us at our own game, a game that we have mastered, a game that we invented—but then again, the game is an old one, won and lost in Eden long ago. And so long as we our own masters, we will be slaves of the culture. And like ignorant rebellious slaves we war with our master, we seek to cure the symptoms of our slavery, instead of seeking the causes.

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its ninth Special Session on the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the recent aggression of the occupied Gaza Strip, and adopted a resolution in which it strongly condemned the ongoing Israeli military operation in Gaza, which had resulted in massive violations of human rights of the Palestinian people, and demanded the occupying power, Israel, to immediately withdraw its military forces from Gaza. The Council also decided to dispatch an urgent independent international fact-finding mission to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

In the resolution, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour, one against and 13 abstentions, the Council called for the immediate cessation of Israeli military attacks throughout the Palestinian Occupied Territory and called upon the occupying power to end its occupation of all Palestinian lands occupied since 1967, and to respect its commitment within the peace process towards the establishment of the independent sovereign Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital. The Council also demanded that the occupying power stop the targeting of civilians and medical facilities and staff as well as the systematic destruction of cultural heritage. It demanded further that the occupying power lift the siege and open all borders. It also requested the Secretary-General of the Untied Nations to investigate the latest targeting of UNRWA facilities in Gaza, including schools, that resulted in the killing of tens of Palestinian civilians, including women and children.

Speaking as a concerned country, Israel said the current resolution was not balanced and did not reflect the realities in the Gaza Strip and did no service to the cause of peace or to the human suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Such a resolution would only embolden Hamas and weaken the trust of the Israeli public in the United Nations and the Council. Less than a month ago, the Middle East Quartet had issued a statement reaffirming the bilateral, direct, uninterrupted, confidential and ongoing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The members of the Council should echo this support. Only such negotiations would bring to fulfilment the two-State vision. Resolutions, such as today’s one would not serve this goal.

Also speaking as a concerned country, Palestine said concern at the events in Gaza Strip could not help but be voiced, in particular with regards to the suffering of the Palestinian people and their terror and despair, which could not be accepted. Palestine could not accept expressions of concern when there were more than 4,000 wounded, and more than 800 martyrs, more than half of which were women and children. Palestine could not accept words of concern when talking about civilians who were falling. The barbaric acts of aggression required a call for the establishment of a fact-finding mission to investigate the Israeli slaughters and acts of terror.

In the context of the general debate, the Council heard from a national human rights institution, and from a wide range of non-governmental organizations which called for an end to hostilities and efforts to be made to improve the humanitarian situation within Gaza. Speakers in the general debate noted that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination had been ignored for more than 40 years, during which the occupying power had flagrantly ignored international law, humanitarian law, and the directives of this and other bodies. A Commission of Inquiry should be set up to investigate effectively and impartially the violation of human rights and humanitarian law in the Gaza Strip. Within the mandate of this Commission should be to draw up a list of violations of both human rights and humanitarian law; identify those responsible for those violations and launch legal action against them; and identify the victims and the damages incurred and ensure full reparation. Others said the proposed draft resolution was a totally one-sided and self-defeating statement whose predictable outcome, if adopted, would, like the previous ones on the issue, regrettably have a negative effect on the credibility of the Council. Israel, as a United Nations member, had the right to defend itself. Israel allowed aid into Gaza, warned civilians before an incoming attack and tried to save civilian lives whenever possible. On the other side Hamas was solely targeting civilians in Israel. Hamas had refused to recognise the very existence of Israel. The international community should use all its force to ensure protection of civilian populations and ensure a just and long-lasting solution. All human beings had the right to peace and security. If the Council was to have a credible role in ensuring human rights around the world it should act to ensure respect for the law and should counsel the General Assembly to act in this, the most serious and longest unresolved situation of widespread human rights abuses facing the United Nations.

Speaking this morning in the general debate was the Irish Human Rights Commission. NGOs speaking were the Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, in a joint statement with B’nai B’rith International, International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Association for World Education, in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, World Federation of Trade Unions, Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities, in a joint statement with Pax Romana, Europe-Third World Centre, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Union of Arab Jurists, in a joint statement with International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), Franciscans International, Defence for Children International, World Organization against Torture, United Nations Watch, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, European Union of Jewish Students, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (APDH), Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, International Commission of Jurists, North-South XXI, and Women’s International Zionist Organization.

Speaking in a right of reply in the general debate was Syria.

Speaking in the context of the debate on the resolution was Egypt, in introduction of the resolution, Israel as a concerned country, Palestine as a concerned country, and Egypt as a general comment. Speaking in explanations of the vote before the vote were Canada, Germany on behalf of the European Union, and Switzerland. Speaking in explanations of the vote after the vote were South Africa, Japan, Russian Federation and Uruguay.

The tenth regular session of the Human Rights Council will be held from 2 to 27 March 2009.

Action on Resolution

In a resolution (L.1/Rev.2) on the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour, one against (Canada), and 13 abstentions, the Council strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation carried out in the Occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which have resulted in massive violation of human rights of the Palestinian people and systematic destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure. It calls for the immediate cessation of Israeli military attacks throughout the Palestinian Occupied Territory; demands the occupying power, Israel, to immediately withdraw its military forces from the occupied Gaza Strip; calls upon the occupying power to end its occupation to all Palestinian lands occupied since 1967, and to respect its commitment within the peace process towards the establishment of the independent sovereign Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital; demands the occupying power stop the targeting of civilians and medical facilities and staff as well as the systematic destruction of cultural heritage; demands further the occupying power lift the siege, open all borders; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the violations of human rights of the Palestinian people by the occupying power; requests all relevant Special Rapporteurs to urgently seek and gather information on violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people and submit their reports to the next Human Rights Council session; requests the occupying power to fully cooperate with all the above-mentioned Rapporteurs; decides to dispatch an urgent independent international fact-finding mission to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and requests the Secretary General of the United Nations to investigate the latest targeting of UNRWA facilities in Gaza, including schools, that resulted in the killing of tens of Palestinian civilians including women and children.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (33):Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (1):Canada.

Abstentions (13): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Arab Group, said that during Friday’s meeting they had listened to speakers who had condemned and deplored, or at least had been concerned over the violations of human rights, humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions. The situation constituted for the Council a mandate for action. They had held consultations and hoped that this draft resolution would pass by consensus and in Egypt’s’ view it should be so. Since Friday they had been positive, in the follow-up of the Security Council, for the situation to improve. But as Israel had rejected the Security Council’s resolution and the killings were going on, the responsibility on the Council was heavy, the world was looking at the Council and it had to speak strongly against the violations.

AHARON LESHNO-YAAR (Israel), speaking as concerned Country, said that before the Council voted on the resolution, he wanted to directly address the Palestinian delegation and other Arab delegations and remind them of what former Secretary-General Kofi Annan had said two years ago: “Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel’s behaviour. But one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians. There have been decades of resolutions. There has been a proliferation of special committees, sessions, etc. Has any of this had an effect on Israel’s policies, other than to strengthen the belief in Israel, and among many of its supporters, that this great Organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process?”

He also wanted to ask his Palestinian colleague if he had learnt anything from the history of 60 years of conflict. Had he drawn any conclusions or were they all stuck in the reality of 1948? In the real world there could be no meaningful consensus without Israel. The current resolution was not balanced and did not reflect the realities in the Gaza Strip and did no service to the cause of peace or to the human suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. He could not help but ask what possible benefit it would bring, short of possibly providing a very brief and futile sense of satisfaction. Such resolution would only embolden Hamas and weaken the trust of the Israeli public in the United Nations and the Council. Less than a month ago, the Middle East Quartet had issued a statement reaffirming the bilateral, direct, uninterrupted, confidential and ongoing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The members of the Council should echo this support. Only such negotiations would bring to fulfilment the two-State vision. Resolutions, such as today’s one would not serve this goal.

IBRAHIM KHRAISHI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said a dialogue had been held with a view to achieving a unanimous position. Work had been done in a positive spirit to reach a text which could be approved by all. The open wound that the Palestinian people had suffered had been offered at the altar of the Human Rights Council, and it was hoped this would be remedied. Concern at the events in Gaza Strip could not help but be voiced, in particular with regards to the suffering of the Palestinian people and their terror and despair, which could not be accepted. Palestine could not accept expressions of concern when there were more than 4,000 wounded, and more than 800 martyrs, more than half of which were women and children. Palestine could not accept words of concern when talking about civilians who were falling. Palestine was entitled to call upon the first United Nations body on human rights to investigate the situation. The barbaric acts of aggression required the calling for the establishment of a fact-finding mission to investigate the Israeli slaughters and acts of terror. Palestine rejected the law of the jungle, and if it agreed that this law ruled the world then all were threatened today and tomorrow. Killing women, children and the defenceless could not be accepted in the modern world. Killing a human being could never be just a matter of viewpoint. Talk had no meaning when the principles of human rights were being trampled underfoot. The draft resolution required support in the view of all this. Palestine would attain its goals in the end, with an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital and the right to return of all its people.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), in a general comment, said that they were not here to take lessons from Israel, which was not in a position to do so. It was Israel’s turn to listen to the Council today and to learn that peace and security could not be built on the corpses of innocent civilians. Israel had obviously not listened to the statement. The whole word agreed to the importance of human rights and humanitarian law as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel should take advice from the world.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked the Palestine delegation for its consultations, but said the draft text still failed to clearly recognize that rocket fire on Israel had led to the current crisis. It also used unnecessary, unhelpful and inflammatory language. Canada therefore called for a vote and would vote against the resolution.

REINHARD SCHWEPPE, (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union had expressed its utmost concern about the situation in the Gaza Strip, and deplored the high number of civilian casualties. The European Union had welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolution 1860, and reiterated its call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire and a renewed peace process in conformity with the appropriate United Nations resolutions and the Quartet’s road map. All parties should avoid acts threatening a permanent, just resolution of the conflict. The European Union had welcomed the Special Session, and was ready to co-sponsor it with a better title. The European Union was deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Gaza. The Council had an opportunity to focus on the human rights consequences of the conflict, and address the needs of all victims. The European Union could support some of the elements in the draft resolution before the Council; unfortunately, the resolution addressed only one side of the conflict, and some paragraphs used legal terms without full evidence of whether definitions were met. For these reasons, the Member States of the European Union which were members of the Human Rights Council would abstain in the vote.

DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Switzerland deplored the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and called on all parties to respect their international obligations under humanitarian law and human rights. Switzerland supported the holding of this Special Session and had made many proposals to improve the text but deeply regretted that no efforts had been made to arrive at a text that could be adopted by consensus. Light had to be shed on all violations that had been committed in Gaza and it was thus important that a reporting mechanism and fact finding mission be created. For these reasons, Switzerland would abstain in the vote.

LUVUYO LONSDALE NDIMENI, (South Africa), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the Human Rights Council’s mandate in dealing with the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in particular the Gaza Strip should be reaffirmed. South Africa understood fully the need for consensus on the issue, and remembered that other resolutions had not been adopted by consensus. The previous resolutions on the subject of Beit Hanoun had not yet been implemented. The current grave situation required steps to be taken. The Government of South Africa had conveyed its opinion on the subject - the practical enjoyment of all human rights by the Palestinian people including the right to self-determination should be ensured. The need for a comprehensive and balanced text should not be ignored - it would only be meaningful if the plight of the Palestinian people was reflected. South Africa hoped the current resolution would be fully implemented.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Japan had abstained from the vote. Japan was deeply concerned over the situation and strongly urged both parties to halt the use of force and to make their outmost efforts toward the peace process. On the resolution, they appreciated the amendments made but it was regrettable that the resolution had still not been balanced enough. Further efforts should have been made, so as to allow the Council to speak in one voice.

VALERY LOSHCHININ, (Russian Federation), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that from the very outset it had sought to ensure the text of the resolution was balanced, and a number of suggestions had been taken into account by the co-sponsors. Unfortunately, not all of the proposals were aimed at drafting a more balanced document. At the same time, in view of the acute situation which had arisen as a result of the military operations in the Gaza Strip, Russia had supported the draft resolution.

ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ, (Uruguay), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Uruguay had voted in favour of the resolution for reasons that were already explained in the statement of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries on Friday. Nonetheless, Uruguay was of the view that no viable solution could be achieved if there was no cessation of all acts of mutual aggression so as to allow for the stones to be laid for negotiations aimed at achieving peace and encouraging the parties to arrive at a mutual commitment. A negotiating mechanism that respected international law and human rights needed to be installed in strict respect of humanitarian law.

General Debate

KATHARINA ROSE, of the Irish Human Rights Commission, said it was a very difficult time and there was grave concern at the current humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. All parties involved should respect human rights and take immediate action to resolve the current crisis. There should be an end to violence on both sides. The international community should urgently increase its ability to effectively monitor the human rights situation in Palestine - in particular, the National Human Rights Institution of Palestine should be strengthened and additional resources provided so that it could effectively fulfil its mandate and monitor and protect human rights at the national level.

KLAUS NETTER, of the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, said that this was the fifth Special Session dealing with the Israel-Arab conflict and it would end with a one-sided condemnation. The media would surely rejoice over this empty political victory. But the resolution would not have any effect on relieving the victims on the ground. He underscored the proportionally of the Council, which was ignoring the basic reason of the conflict, which was the firing of Hamas rockets into Israel. Israel, as a United Nations member, had the right to defend itself. Israel allowed aid into Gaza, warned civilians before an incoming attack and tried to save civilian lives whenever possible. On the other side Hamas was solely targeting civilians in Israel. Hamas had refused to recognise the very existence of Israel. The Council had to condemn the actions by Hamas and recognise the threat it posed to the peace process.

DANIEL LACK, of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers, said certain members of the international community had chosen to ignore blatant violations of terrorist groups, while purporting to criticise Israel in the exercise of its undoubted United Nations Charter and other rights, without any basis in international law. The terrorist actions of Hamas fully corresponded to the generally accepted definition of terrorism. Alleged criticism of Israel’s control of Gaza’s airspace and waters was baseless since the terrorist occupation of Gaza conveyed no rights analogous to a sovereign state. There was no reason to consider the Gaza Strip as occupied territory. The draft resolution was a totally one-sided and self-defeating statement whose predictable outcome, if adopted, would, like the previous ones on the issue, regrettably have a negative effect on the credibility of the Council.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that the great tragedy now taking place in Gaza and over the rocketed area in Southern Israel was being debated in the first week of 2009, which was the International Year of Reconciliation. A year ago the Special Rapporteur John Dugard, in his final report had strongly advised the United Nations to withdraw from the Quartet and had rejected its roadmap. He had predicted that there was no immediate prospect of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and that was still the situation. Gaza, under the leadership of Hamas was a classic example of a divided society, the division between Gaza and the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, Gaza and Egypt and Gaza and the wider world. Gaza’s future status was a key issue of any negotiations. He proposed to go back to Churchill’s 1946 idea of a united states of Abraham in the Middle East. The Hamas Charter made any discussions impossible.

OSIRIS OVIEDO, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, said the situation was grave in Palestine, and the efforts of the body in protecting human rights was important. The World Federation condemned the massacre being perpetrated by the Israeli military. Israeli military action had destroyed homes, mosques, and infrastructure in general, and was blocking assistance to the wounded, further to the unjust blockade. It was a difficult time of pain and mourning. The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination had been ignored for more than 40 years, during which the occupying power had flagrantly ignored international law, humanitarian law, and the directives of this and other bodies. The credibility of international institutions was being tested, as was the commitment to human rights. The international community could not remain spectators to genocide, and should step up its actions to put an end to this holocaust. A resolution should contain proposals for concrete action.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples, said that the blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip was behind massive human rights violations of human rights. The latest military action had brought many war crimes and their perpetrators had to be brought to justice. Last Friday, the Movement and 31 other associations had filed a complaint to the International Court of Justice and called for the State of France to do the same. The Movement would also denounce any acts of anti-Semitism in France. Both border countries of Gaza had to open their borders for any person seeking refuge. The Movement also called for the lifting of the Gaza blockade and for the implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions.

FLORIANA POLITO, of Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities, in a joint statement with Pax Romana, said the huge number of civilian deaths and casualties in Gaza had led to tragic suffering for the Palestinian population. Many more civilians would be killed if hostilities continued. Medical relief operations had been seriously affected since the beginning of the bombing in Gaza. Any movement inside Gaza had become dangerous. The Israeli military operation came on top of the serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with a basic lack of food, water and energy supplies. War could not be justified either by Israel or by Hamas. A permanent ceasefire was necessary to bring supplies and humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Council should urge all parties involved to commit themselves to an immediate permanent ceasefire, and to enforce international humanitarian and international human rights law. Israel should bring an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people and to the excessive use of force. The international community should use all its force to ensure protection of civilian populations and a just and long-lasting solution.

CELINE BRUN, of Europe–Third World Center, said that for the 800 Palestinian deaths and many injured and the many human rights violations, obtaining justice has become a vital importance. Serious human rights violations had been perpetrated by the Israeli forces. The military operation suggested a deliberate wish to systematically attack civilians, all tantamount to violations of international law. State Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention had to apply international humanitarian law; however Israel was violating it on a massive scale. International peace and security had to be re-established in the region.

JAN LONN, of the International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said the ongoing barbarism had shocked the peoples of the world who were daily demonstrating their outrage at this latest Israeli adventure, but they were also shocked that the human rights bodies were not making more effective efforts to take the necessary strong and united actions to immediately and without delay stop these crimes against humanity. This Special Session was an opportunity to speak out against the horrors taking place in Gaza. The Council should end impunity, and send a clear message as to the consequences of such flagrant crimes and the assault on the entire fabric of international law. The Council should establish a Commission of Inquiry into the war crimes and human rights violations perpetrated by Israel, in particular during the ongoing aggression against Gaza, and on the basis of these make recommendations to the General Assembly on holding the leaders of the State of Israel responsible for their actions.

JEREMIE SMITH, of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights, welcomed the holding of the Special Session and expressed deep concern over the disproportionate use of force in the Gaza Strip, which had caused many deaths among civilians, humanitarian aid workers and United Nations staff. In the current situation, there was an unprecedented level of disregard of international human rights and humanitarian law in recent time. The Council should demand an immediate ceasefire and call for effective measures to be undertaken for humanitarian aid to be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. Individuals responsible for war crimes should be brought to justice and the Council should forward any information it had in this regard to the International Court of Justice.

DAVID FERNANDEZ PUYANA, of Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, said there had been an escalation of violence, with deaths of women and children due to the armed actions of Israel. This was a serious breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of unarmed civilians. The adoption of resolution 1860 by the Security Council was welcomed. The Human Rights Council should call on the Security Council to apply the General Assembly resolution which was adopted in October. States should call on Israel to live up to its commitments and obligations in international and humanitarian law. A Commission of Inquiry should be set up to investigate effectively and impartially the violation of human rights and humanitarian law in the Gaza Strip. The Council should adopt a consensus text encouraging the parties to stop their actions and respect the civilians in the Gaza Strip.

ELIAS KHOURI, of Union of Arab Jurists, in a joint statement with International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), said that as they were sitting here in the room and condemning the actions of Israel, the war machine of Israel continued to kill innocent civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure in Gaza. What was taking place in Gaza was a violation of international human rights law and humanitarian law. Basic war principles, such as to make a difference between a civilian and military target, were not respected by Israel. The current attack was not due to the firing of Hamas rockets, as Israel had already started occupying and attacking Gaza well before Hamas had been in power. Israel had refused to implement several international resolutions. These criminal acts were supported by several western powers.

DENISE BOYLE, of Franciscans International, said the escalation of violence had completely disregarded the most basic principles of international humanitarian law, leading to the present humanitarian tragedy. A cease-fire was absolutely necessary in order to prevent the further targeting of the civilian population. The military offensive added further suffering to the civilian population in Gaza enduring the blockade. The Human Rights Council should condemn the targeting of civilians by both sides. The Council should also urge Israel and Hamas leaders to durably cease all hostilities and fully respect the principles of international humanitarian law. Israel should allow full access to Gaza to humanitarian agencies and lift the blockade, as well as cease all measures that amounted to collective punishment. The international community should not think it would have met its responsibilities by brokering only a localised ceasefire - rather, its greater responsibility was to bring about a genuine peace treaty between Israel and Palestine, within a regional framework, which alone could make such a peace possible and secure.

JULIA D’ALOISIO, of Defence for Children International, illustrated the devastating impact of the current conflict in Gaza on children. According to Defense for Children Palestine, at least 158 children had been killed in the current operation and the United Nations reported over 250 child fatalities. Israel had claimed that this latest military operation aimed to stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel, which was undoubtedly illegal and should be condemned. Nevertheless, Israel’s offensive was not only grossly disproportionate but clearly failed to distinguish between military and civilian targets. They could not see how this slaughter could make Israel safer. Israel had wilfully created a humanitarian disaster which aid agencies could no longer contain.

ROLIN WAVRE, of World Organization Against Torture, said reports had denounced the targeting of civilians and civilian objects during military operations by Israeli Defense Forces. The Gaza Strip had remained under blockade since 2007, having only a limited access to humanitarian supplies. The death toll would sharply increase with the lack of medical supplies, food and basic commodities such as fuel and electric power. The Israeli authorities should immediately cease the military operations and the United Nations should establish a United Nations-led mission whose mandate should be: to establish the facts; to draw up a list of violations of both human rights and humanitarian law; to identify those responsible for those violations and launch legal action against them; and to identify the victims and the damages incurred and ensure full reparation.

HILLEL NEUER of United Nations Watch, said that much of this session had revolved around a fundamental misconception which was that in the current war between Hamas and Israel, culpability was to be determined by simply counting the amount of deaths and casualties on each side, comparing and then reaching a verdict. This sought to dismiss the quantity and quality of Israeli suffering under Hamas terror. There was no rule in international law, state practice or in common sense to support this proposition. The proportionality obligation under international law was completely different: it required that a military operation be directed at a legitimate military objective and be proportionate in the sense that expected collateral damage to civilians not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated. This was what Hamas violated everyday.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said despite the Security Council’s near unanimous adoption of resolution 18/60, a humanitarian catastrophe was continuing to unfold in Gaza. As the United Nations body with primary responsibility for the protection of human rights, the Council should demand that all parties to the current conflict immediately end all unlawful attacks against civilians and other serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and demand measures to relieve civilians in Gaza and end the indiscriminate rocket attacks that endangered civilians in Southern Israel. The Council should call on Israel to allow human rights and humanitarian workers and journalists immediate unfettered access to Gaza. There should be full accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Council should also insist on the dispatch to the area without delay of international monitors. The grave transgressions of human rights and international humanitarian law which were so conspicuous a feature of the conflict should cease.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said that they were gravely concerned that the already dire humanitarian situation in Gaza had reached catastrophic proportions during the ongoing armed conflict. While Israel’s refusal to allow independent monitors into Gaza had limited their ability to investigate individual incidents, they were deeply concerned about attacks that might have caused indiscriminate or disproportionate loss of civilian life, in violation of the law of war. Hamas had also violated the laws of war with deliberate or indiscriminate attacks using rockets against population centres in Israel. Also, the closure of Gaza constituted an unlawful collective punishment of the civilian populations. Both sides had to take all necessary measures to protect civilian populations. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to call upon Israel to abide by the laws of war.

LIRAZ MADMONY, of the European Union of Jewish Students, said all human beings had the right to peace and security. The United Nations was ignoring the rights of Israelis, mainly the right to life. Everyone suffered in the current situation. Israelis dreamed of peace, which would come when the rulers of Gaza chose humanity over hate. Israel would not grant victory to the terrorists, but would remain strong. Who was protecting Israel’s human rights?

BRENDA VUKOVIC, of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, condemned the severe acts against the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, which reflected a clear ignorance of human rights and were crimes against peace. The current situation was a threat to peace. The international community had a role to play to put an end to the current human rights violations. The Permanent Assembly also called on the United Nations to step up its efforts to put an end to the current humanitarian crisis.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, said today the Israeli occupying power, in its implacable intransigence aimed at crushing the resistance of the Palestinian people, was perpetrating a further atrocity in the Gaza Strip. The Zionist occupying army had stepped up its attacks on civilians, including in schools, leading to the deaths of children. The Israeli State justified its barbaric aggression by claiming to be defending itself against attacks. The people of Gaza, martyred, were condemned to a ghetto, with a total blockade forbidding them to leave the Strip. Israel violated the most basic norms and principles of contemporary international law. The war of aggression sought to change the situation in Gaza, overcome Palestine, and eradicate the democratically elected Government of the Gaza Strip. Israel was continuing to enjoy impunity, ignoring and flouting the resolutions of the Security Council, including the latest one, and the resolutions of the Human Rights Council. The international community should no longer allow an occupying power to strive to exterminate a population for the single crime of demanding its right to self-determination and to live in peace.

LUKAS MACHON, of the International Commission of Jurists, said that Palestinian civilians continued to pay the heaviest toll in the latest Israeli operation, with serious violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law. Since this military operation had started, hundreds of Palestinian civilians had been killed. The Israeli military operation and the Hamas rocket attacks continued to inflict suffering on both sides, in violation of Security Council resolution 1860. Israel’s attacks had been indiscriminate or disproportionate and it had failed in its legal obligation to spare civilians from attacks. The conclusion of an immediate and durable cease-fire was essential and Israel had to end the siege of Gaza. The International Commission of Jurists called on the Council to conduct a fact-finding investigation on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Gaza and to condemn incidents such as the firing of rockets that might fuel the conflict.

SHABARINATH NAIR, of North South XXI, said there was outrage at the unjustifiable and inhumanely intense violence perpetrated by the Government of Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. The current onslaught could leave no doubt that there was very significant evidence that the crime of genocide was being committed by Israel against the Palestinian people. The genocide should be stopped, and those directly and indirectly responsible should be punished. While the ceasefire was the responsibility of the Security Council, the Council and the General Assembly had the duty to investigate the grave breaches of individual’s rights in Gaza, and urge effective action to bring those responsible to justice. If the Council was to have a credible role in ensuring human rights around the world it should act to ensure respect for the law and should counsel the General Assembly to act in this, the most serious and longest unresolved situation of widespread human rights abuses facing the United Nations.

MARISSA CRAMER, of the Women’s International Zionist Organization, said that one had to wonder where the Council was when almost 1 million citizens in southern Israel had been bombed with 500 rockets during the preceding week of the current attack on Gaza. Were the lives of Israeli children worth less to the Council than those of Palestinians? Before voting today, some of the delegates should come to visit the daycares centre in Sderot. What would one do if one’s family was under fire for eight straight years? On the other hand, civil society in Gaza, led by Hamas, was calling upon children and women to form a human shield in order to protect buildings from anticipated Israeli air strikes. This calculated use of civilians as human shields was intended to decrease the vulnerability of Hamas. This technique had brought about Special Sessions like this one today.

Right of Reply

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI, (Syria), speaking in a right of reply, said the representative of Israel had last Friday mentioned Syria, and the delegation of Israel, which was exercising state terrorism in an organised fashion, in no way had the right to mention anyone or to quote anybody’s name. Israel had carried out attacks indiscriminately, without differentiating between children, women and the elderly, had targeted international organizations and ambulances, and when civilians sought refuge in United Nations schools, Israel had targeted those schools and the women and children therein. Israel was reiterating here its war crimes and crimes against humanity. This war was a war against children - they were 40 per cent of the total victims of this war. The world was now accustomed to hearing the lies voiced by Israel to avoid sanctions whenever it committed such massacres. These accusations voiced by Israel lacked credibility.

There is no question in my mind that Hamas uses populist movement to substantiate its endeavor, but I think the general assessment is a bit innaccurate.

The general use of civilians in populist warfare is not unheard of, certainly in history, and much of the Palestinian populace is complicit in these actions.  More so, it is one thing to say Hamas forces civilians to stand in front of direct fire to protect themselves (the connotation of the human shields claim), and another to say that Palestinian civilians show their solidarity with their fighters by placing themselves in harms way, themselves.

Certainly, either way, this deserves the ire of all countries and people abroad, as the reality is the same either way.  However, in this day and age, when winning the hearts and minds seems to be our paramount objective, both militarily and diplomatically - semantics means everything.

Driving around bodies of dead children, and taking their pictures in different locations is not only morally reprehensible, but self-destructive.