The Reaction of the International

The reaction of the international community to the events of the past three months can only be characterized as a kind of self-induced impotence that borders on contempt for the human rights of the Palestinian people. The United States, along with key European partners, have attempted to either sideline or emasculate efforts to resolve the current crisis within the framework ofinternational law and UN resolutions.

During the S pecial Session of the Commission on Human Rights, convened to discuss the situation in the 1967 occupied territories, for example, both France (speaking on behalf of the EU) and the United States, voted against the resolution deploring Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people and calling for an international commission of inquiry. Echoing arguments first raised in 1947 during General Assembly debate on the future of Palestine, both France and the US claimed that the resolution, which set forth a legal framework and an agenda for international action, would only harm political efforts to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.

Similar comments have emanated from theUN Security Council in the context of the ongoing debate about the deployment of an international protection force in the occupied Palestinianterritories. US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, known for his uncompromising stand during negotiations to end the conflict in Balkans including support for the right of return of refugees, decried efforts to raise issues of principle in the Security Council as nothing more than rhetoric harmful to the "Middle East peace process." This view led the representative of Cuba to wryly note that Member States who were vocal champions of human rights seemed to have lost their enthusiasm when it came to the rights of the Palestinians.

The representative of Namibia, meanwhile, reminded members that "The fundamental problem, however, had to be dealt with - the occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel. The time had come for the United Nations to become fully engaged. A comprehensive settlement could only be achieved by granting of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to selfdetermination."
Oddly, however, even eminent UN figures, such as Secretary General Kofi Annan, have been reluctant to rely upon the clarity provided by international law and UN resolutions. In fact, by late November, Annan appeared at times to be adrift in the sea of American semantics. Referring to the continued confiscation and destruction of Palestinian property and expansion of settlements, Annan duly noted that "These actions seriously complicate the discussions by the parties of the permanent status issues."

Gone was any reference to international law and the plethora of UN resolutions calling for an immediate cessation of settlement activity and declaring Israeli policies to change the demographic character of the occupied territories as null and void. In a similar vein, Annan's approach to the deployment of international observers stands in marked contrast to general comments delivered a year earlier in his Report of the Secretary General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts.

Annan then wrote that, "preventive deployment will be of particular value in situations where the legacy of past conflict has increased the risk of mass violations of human rights." In the Palestinian case, Annan has linked the deployment of an international protection force to the consent of the very party, Israel, which is not only responsible for the mass violations of human rights, but is also considered as a belligerent occupying force. While Israel continues to reject the deployment of such a force, it called at the same time for the deployment of UN forces in the Shebaa farms area of south Lebanon.

American-led efforts to resolve the current crisis continue to focus on mechanisms outside the framework of international law and the United Nations. Following the conclusion of USledmeetings in Sharm al-Sheikh in mid-October, the United States announced the formation of socalled fact-finding committee to look into the causes of the current Palestinian uprising, following in the footsteps of a long line of commissions sent to the region from the 1919 King-Crane Commission onward. The announcement came at a time of growing popular pressure locally and internationally for an independent, expert commission of inquiry grounded in international law.

Israel meanwhile remained opposed to such a commission, concerned that inclusion of professional investigators may lead to the accumulation of material that could later be used to press charges against soldiers and settlers in the international war crimes tribunal to be established under the 1998 Rome Statute. When the terms of reference for the fact-finding committee led by former US senator George Mitchell finally became clear in early December, it was evident that international law had once again been sidelined.

The American framework for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has, in effect, substituted international law and UN resolutions with a political framework that has little relationship to the rights of the Palestinian people. Within this paradigm, criticism of American mediation efforts from both parties is deemed to be an appropriate gauge of the US role as an "honest broker" and a fitting measure of a "fair" solution to the conflict. Similarly, Israeli and American officials deemed Israel's so-called "generous offer" at Camp David in July to be the fitting measure of a lasting and comprehensive peace in the region, regardless of the fact that the offer was far from consistent with international law, particularly in relation to Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands.

If events on the ground since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993 were not evidence enough of the willingness of the US to ignore human rights in order to achieve its strategic interests in the region and deliver a "peace agreement", additional evidence surfaced in an October 2000 report drafted by the ashingtonbased Center for Strategic and International Studies which has close links to the US government. The report, widely criticized by human rights groups, titled "Peace and War: Israel versus the Palestinians", suggests that a suspension of some basic human rights for Palestinians will be required in order to implement any agreement.

A Renewed Palestinian Appeal for International Protection
These views stand in clear contrast to the observations and conclusions of local and international non-governmental human rights organizations. While the Israeli military continues to claim that its soldiers only fire when their lives are in danger, despite the protection of armored jeeps and flak jackets capable of stopping bullets fired from an M-16 or AK-47 at any range, investigations by several international human rights organizations have similarly concluded that Israeli soldiers are firing at Palestinian demonstrators with intent to kill and injure. In this context, the Palestinian leadership as well as NGOs and community organizations, in addition to international organizations, have approached governments, the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, and the UN Commission for Human Rights appealing for immediate intervention for the protection of Palestiniancivilians and in order to enforce a new, rightsbased framework for a future solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Palestinian people in the 1967 Israeli occupied territories, its refugees in the Arab world, Europe and the United States, as well as the Arab people in the Middle East have made clear: there will be no peace between the Zionist state and the Palestinian people until the international community will take an active role in applying its standards to the Palestinian people.

In light of the current uprising, the Palestinian people, "who have gone through a century of battles for the land, the return, and the state" have once again "promised to God and their martyrs to continue until they achieve their national rights, foremost the right of return and the independent state with Jerusalem as its capital." (Al-Aqsa Intifada Statement" issued by the Union of Youth Activity Centers, 2 October 2000).

Unfortunately, the international community continues to be unresponsive to the demands of the Palestinian people and obligations of international law. Instead of a serious evaluation of the causes of the failure, despite massive internation al financial and political support, of the Oslo process, there is a peculiar insistence on more of the same ineffective recipes prescribed by the powerful governments which dominate the agenda of the international community: "Return to the pre-28 September Oslo framework" and "no international intervention without Israeli consent" are the principles upheld by United States, the European Union, Canada, and Japan.

It appears that little has changed in the position of the international community since the 1947 debate over the UN Palestine partition plan, when the UN General Assembly both ignored and refused to implement international law. The question remains as to how much more education and awareness-raising is required, let alone the loss of human life, before the international community, and its powerful member states in particular, will act to implement the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, as recognized in more than fifty years of UN resolutions, statements, and international law.

light of the current uprising, the Palestinian people, "who have gone through a century of battles for the land, the return, and the state" have once again "promised to God and their martyrs to continue until they achieve their national rights, foremost the right of return and the independentstate with Jerusalem as its capital." (Al-Aqsa Intifada Statement" issued by the Union of Youth Activity Centers, 2 October 2000).

Unfortunately, the international communitycontinues to be unresponsive to the demands of the Palestinian people and obligations of international law. Instead of a serious evaluation of the causes of the failure, despite massive international financial and political support, of the Oslo process, there is a peculiar insistence on more of the same ineffective recipes prescribed by the powerful governments which dominate the agenda of the international community: "Return to the pre-28 September Oslo framework" and "no international intervention without Israeli consent" are the principles upheld by United States, the European Union, Canada, and Japan.

Since 6 October the southern "safe passage" route between Gaza and the West Bank has been closedwith additional severe restrictions on travel from Gaza International Airport as well as land crossings to Egypt and Jordan, affecting both personal mobility and transportation of goods. Internal closures haveprevented Palestinians from travelling between towns and villages in the West Bank and Gaza. Shorttermeconomic losses include reduced income to farmers, workers, merchants and business people who cannot reach their places of employment or who are unable to obtain inputs and/or sell their goods and services.

It is estimated that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - the value of goods and services produced in the Palestinian economy - has been reduced by 50 percent over the period of the uprising,resulting in losses of some 8 million dollars per day. Estimate d losses in daily labor range from USD 1.8 million to 3 million according to changes in the labor flow. Restrictions on registered Palestinian non-agricultural exports to Israel have resulted in daily losses of USD 1.9 million.

These latter losses are included in the estimated loss in GDP as external and internal trade activities are included in the calculation of GDP. Excluding material damage to property and other losses, Palestinians are estimated to have lost USD 505 million between 28 September and 26 November, an aggregate amount 2.5 times the value of donor disbursements to the PA during the first half of 2000. Lost income-earning opportunities amount to approximately 10 percent of the estimated value of GDP for 2000.

Unemployment has risen from less than 11 percent to nearly 40 percent of the labor force. This amounts to some 260,000 unemployed persons on average supporting 4 other persons. Approximately 1,000,000 persons or one-third of the population has been immediately and negatively affected. If previously unemployed persons are included, this figure rises to 1,370,000 persons or 45.5 percent of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories. By the end of December, the poverty rate is estimated to rise to 31.8 percent up from 21.1 percent in September. According to a World Bank report, even with a partial relaxation in restrictions on mobility, the poverty rate will rise to about 43.8 percent by the end of 2001.

The long-term cost of caring for thousands of wounded and those with disabilities will certainly amount in the millions of dollars. The increased costs, particularly in the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Affairs are expected to increase the estimated fiscal deficit for 2000 from 25 million to 100 million dollars. Much of the progress in the economy over the past three years has been wiped away by events of the past several months.