UN Secretary General Guterrez was blistering in his condemnation of Israel at yesterday’s session of the UN Security Council. He called for an immediate ceasefire. While he condemned the attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas, he also said “It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum”. Israel promptly called for his resignation, but no other country expressed support for his resignation. Read more.
A cornered Israel took the extraordinary step of calling for the resignation of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterrez during the fourth day of debate on the Israel-Palestine issue. Why? Because he dared to say what Israel has been refusing to accept – namely that the Hamas attack on October 7th came after a long series of provocations by Israel.
Excerpt from Guterrez statement: “Excellencies it is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation; they have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing”.
While the UNSC was deliberating, the United Nations Organization for Humanitarian Affairs reported that “A total of 704 Palestinians, including 305 children, have been killed over the past 24 hours”.
In an extraordinary move, Israel says it is banning United Nations representatives from visiting the country “to teach them a lesson”. Israel must feel it has the support of the USA and some other countries. A major political battle is brewing at the UN. Is it even possible that Israel might be suspended from the international body?
Secretary General Guterrez is right. The Hamas attack didn’t happen in a vacuum. If those who murdered Israeli civilians are “animals”, something made them that way. We will never know the back story of the 1500 Hamas fighters who broke their way out on October and killed so many Israeli civilians. They are all dead now.
But here is a story I do know. One of a million. An immediate story, and a back story.
Israel killed the whole family of my friend Ahmed A. two days ago. His father, his brother and sister and two nieces. I don’t know the circumstance exactly, he is too wrought with grief to give much detail, but since they all died together, I assume the house was bombed or collapsed. I have been to the house. I have met his family and had dinner with them one night, somewhere in the southern part of Gaza City. They were very kind and asked me lots of questions.
But his mother was not killed in the strike that killed her husband, children and grandchildren. She had died two years before. For several years she had been suffering from cancer. She had repeatedly applied for Israeli permission to get to a hospital in Jerusalem to be treated, but was always denied the exit visa. No reason was ever given. When she died, Ahmad was consumed with grief and anger. Why would Israel deny an old woman with cancer the right to get treatment?
Oh, and Ahmad’s oldest brother also wasn’t killed in this latest bombing. An Israeli missile killed him 5 years earlier. That brother had joined Hamas to fight for the liberation of those stuck in Israel’s largest “outdoor prison”. Ahmed looked up to his older brother. “He was very brave“, Ahmed told me.
But Ahmed decided not to join Hamas himself. He threw himself instead into university studies and wrote stories in English which he tried to circulate to the outside world. He eventually got a scholarship to study abroad.
Which is why he is alive today.
He is now the only one of his family left. I wonder what he and thousands of other Palestinians in Gaza are thinking now. Israel kills you with missiles when you fight. They kill you at a denied checkpoint when you are sick. They kill you when you dont fight but just huddle, terrified, at home.
Israel’s murderous campaign must be leaving many wondering whether it isn’t better to die fighting than die terrified waiting for a bomb to land on your house.
STOP THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS
Prime Minister Trudeau has now called for a “limited” short term ceasefire. A good step, but not enough. Please write Prime Minister Trudeau to call on all sides to:
- Fully respect international law, including the laws of warfare
- Implement an immediate ceasefire
- Cancel any proposed ground invasion
- Release all hostages
- Allow urgently needed humanitarian aid to fully enter Gaza and the aid be distributed effectively
- Call for a UN sponsored international conference to address the root causes of the question of Palestine
Canada Talks Israel/Palestine 
Compare Guterres’ excellent unequivocal speech to the drivel coming from Erdogan
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkeys-erdogan-says-hamas-is-not-terrorist-organisation-2023-10-25/
Hey Robin, What is the definition of a terrorist organization, according to you? It is a “political” label to be sure. But what would be the defining characteristics? It can’t just be an organizatin you really, really hate, right? Google tells me a terrorist organization is one that the government has listed as a terrorist organization.
If it is one that inflicts “terror” on civilians, then the IDF should surely qualify, no?
Hi Peter, It is (not) surprising how many times I have been asked to define terrorist group in the last three weeks, starting with responses to my comments on Norman Finkelstein’s webinar on Oct 8, and in the subsequent chatter. Without offering a comprehensive definition, let me distinguish a terrorist group from a terrorist action. I would hope an act of terror is a known thing. It is easily and clearly defined in IHL. But let’s agree at least that what Hamas did in Israel at a music festival on Oct 7 was an act of terror: an intentional targeted slaughter of Israeli civilians at a rave concert. The initial kill ratio was 700 civilians to 44 Israeli soldiers, plus alleged beheadings. That’s terrorism. Without offering a comprehensive definition of a “terrorist group”, let’s simplify: do we call Hamas a terrorist group when they deliver milk to babies? Or just when they kill innocents? (Let’s not bother with what I’ve also seen, ie that “mostly soldiers were killed by Hamas” [not true] or “all Israelis carry guns, anyway” [not true].) Or that the occupation and siege justify atrocity from the other side [not true].) I would also argue that when your modus operandi is committing actions that we agree are tarror, then you are a terrorist group. And, to your last question, what I write above applies to any organization that commits atrocity or terror (IDF, Hamas, whomever). Now, who is willing to unequivocally denounce Hamas for terrorism and atrocity. Versus, who wants to tap dance around that instead and damage our cause in support of Palestine?
Robin,
The problem with all the definitions of terrorism is that they include the word “intend” or “intent” or “intention”. The very same observable act may or may not be terrorism according to those definitions depending on what the intent of the perpetrator might be. For example, if someone kills a man to steal his expensive watch, it is not terrorism; if that same man kills that same person with a political intent such as intimidating a population or weakening a political group) and decides to take the attractive watch, it is terrorism. There is no observable difference between the two acts unless you are a mind reader. In the case of the Israeli rave (supporters prefer the word “concert”), I do not see how you you can know the intent of the attackers. Perhaps you have sources that I cannot imagine.
The rational intent of the attackers would have been to grab hostages and get away without any violence. The attack was well planned by people who appear to have been very careful and presumably rational. They may have thought that this would be easy at a party where young people were enjoying music, drink, drugs, etc. They were wrong; and we have no way of knowing what their real intent was, who fired the first shots, and why they behaved so irrationally.
I do not think that it is useful to use a word like “terrorism” as a label for a group and then conclude that we cannot negotiate with the labelled group. Progress requires negotiation.
Dave
You are generalizing and I am being as specific as I can, with evidence in hand to most accounts. Hamas has denied killing children, beheading and raping. While (as far as we know) they are lying, they make clear thereby that they know and agree that these actions are universally condemned. They aren’t trying to justify them as “liberation” or “regrettable actions in the process” towards liberation (collateral damage). They are simply denying they happened or that their “militants” could ever have done such things. Why? Because these are acts of terror that are inexcusable. They are also somewhat predictable when sending young male zealots into an “enemy music festival” with machine guns. We can speculate what the plans of the attackers were but not whether these were acts of terror, ie atrocities, or not. Far less important whether we need to label Hamas as a “terrorist group” when not committing terrorist actions.
Robin
Robin,
You say that you have “evidence in hand”; please share it. All that you say is what I read in some of the Israeli reports. Israel has been withholding evidence. For example, they showed reporters a film of what happened in the Kibbutzim but would not release copies so they could be examined for evidence of faking. What do you have?
Dave
I wrote “we have evidence in hand by most accounts”. I didn’t mean I have evidence beyond what you or anyone else have seen. I would find it possible but highly unlikely that what we have been told about the events of Oct 7 did not happen. Are you inclined to disbelieve the claims?
Robin
Robin,
What I find when I can examine the statements by disagreeing parties is that they do not necessarily say anything false, but they mislead by omitting things. They can defend, sometimes prove, everything that they say but they are still being disingenuous. In the case of October 7, there were a number of statements by survivors that have simply disappeared from the press. Some of the most horrifying statements have also disappeared when another picture emerged. I do not feel that we have yet gotten the full picture of what happened.
Erdogan, Trudeau and many others seem to be assuming a false dichotomy. It is quite possible for a group to be both terrorists and a liberation force. “Liberation” is a description of a goal. “Terrorism” is a description of a tool or technique. Many freedom fighters have been characterized as terrorists by their opponents; both descriptions were accurate. We can support their goals while decrying their methods.
What exactly are Hamas’ goals is a legitimate question, too. Liberation? Theocratic state with no democratic mechanisms? Given their atrocities, these are legitimate questions. At what point is an armed action intentionally against civilians no king an act of liberation? I’d argue: immediately and by definition. It hurts our cause.
Robin, Any group as large as Hamas will have a variety of views and goals. They may agree on broad-brush goals such as “Let my people go” but disagree on tactics to meet those goals. They may also disagree on why they have those goals but still join together to achieve them. Whether or not the goals are legitimate may be a judgement call and well-intentioned people may disagree.
Dave
That’s the same point I made and why I think we should speak of the actions not how we define Hamas as a group. Their 2017 Hamas Charter update is ambiguous. It references 1967 borders but also denying establishment of Israel. Intentionally ambiguous to satiate factions within.
Are you withdrawing your branding of Hamas as a terrorist group?
Dave
I’m not sure I branded everyone in Hamas as terrorists or even called the group a terrorist group. I referred to the actions of Oct 7 as terrorist actions.
Robin
Done. And I also asked that he stick up for UN Secretary-General Gutteres, who was only speaking the truth. My next step is to donate to UNRWA. Thanks for all your work on this.
It never stops, Israel always the victim. Never done anything wrong.
Almost everything first the Zionists and later Israel done in last 100 years, are war crimes.
I will add this description also, for those interested:
“The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, signed on 9 December 1999, defines terrorism in its Article 2.1.b as “any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
The United Nations Security Council, it its resolution 1566 of October 2004, elaborates this definition, stating that terrorists acts are “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” The Security Council recalls that such acts are “under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.” The UN General Assembly reaffirmed this definition in January 2006 (Resolution 60/43), defining terrorist acts as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes.”
In 2004, the UN set up a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. In their report to the UN Secretary General in December 2004, titled “A More Secure World, Our Shared Responsibility,” the experts proposed to define terrorism as “any action . . . that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act” (para. 164(d), p. 49). This definition is sensibly the same as the one proposed by the UN Security Council, though it adds the notions of civilians or “non-combatants” as potential targets of terrorist attacks.”
from: https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/terrorism/
Till the UN recognizes Israel as a country of the Middle East, the UN has no say about Israel.
Actually, the UN laid the foundation for the state of Israel in 1947 with rsolution 181. Many Israeli politicians have called that Israel’s birth certificate. Perhaps its time the UN reconsidered that motion, given Israel’s behaviour since then.
Resolution 181 the Arabs unilaterally and Universally rejected. Its 2023 not post War World War II 1947. The UN ’47 vote which recognized the Jewish right to self determination within the Balfour Declaration territories, hardly gave birth to the Jewish state. LOL An absolutely absurd metaphor. As if the Jewish state qualifies as a new born baby, the UN being the womb! Israel like all countries who militarily fight for and Win their national Independence – war achieved the “rebirth” of the Jewish state – not some UN General Assembly vote in New York. Attempts to turn back the clock to 1947, turn back the clock to 1776 and restore British rule over the American colonies. Fat chance.
Res 181 was defeated in the Security Council, Dec 1947. Only Israeli PR & White, Western Major media echo each other in stating the UN “laid the foundation” for the ethnoracy that proudly calls itself “the Jewish state” It was mass murder & deportion / concentration camps that created ‘Israel.”
Mr. Cook, I’m confused by your comment. Resolution 181 was a resolution of the UNGA, not the Security Council and it was passed November 1947.
see: https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181
In fact, the Security Council permanent (veto) members in their UNGA voted either in favour (USA, France, USSR) or abstained (UK, China) but as Peter notes this was an UNGA resolution and it passed 33yes-13no-10abst. Like it or not, it is the legal basis for the state of Israel.
I see you refused to post my response to your: Return to a 181 Resolution that never passed. Revisionist history sucks.
Hey Mosckerr, Better bone up on your history
UNGA resolution 181 passed November 1947
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181
Peter, a UN General Assembly resolution that garners a majority of members’ support is nonbonding. Such a resolution must pass the UN Security Council in order to become UN policy. The resolution in question failed in the Security Council in December 1947 and never became UN policy. In other words, the UN never endorsed the partition of Palestine. But that didn’t stop israel, beginning in December 1947, to begin to murder and terrorize Palestinians in their homes, their villages, in Jerusalem, etc. Israel used horrific violence to steal Palestine from Palestinians, and turn them into prisoners and refugees. Nor has Israel permitted Palestinians to return to their homes. Israel, a criminal outlier among the nations, has never been held to account. Why not?
Hello Richard,
This is the first time I have ever heard that UNGA 181 failed in UNSC. You are right that UNGA resolutions are non binding, but they do not need to go to UNSC. In fact, very few UNGA resolutions to to UNSC. Can you pls show me/us the reference on this. I think you are in error, but would be gladly corrected.
UNGA 181 became UN policy and Israel (well, the Zionists) started acting on it right away. They started driving Palestinians out of Jaffa (which by 181 was supposed to be Palestinian), the day after the vote.
UNSC Resolutions have referred to UNGA 181, including for instance UNSCR 42. (1948); or affirming the two states partition in UNSCR 1397 (2002). ICJ refers to 181 in its advisory opinion “recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish…” (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 3004).
But 181 was considered binding even though not implemented as planned (see Kattan, The UN Partition Plan for Palestine and Int’l Law —online). Some scholars do consider 181 as a recommendation only. Others as a binding legal commitment. Some as a recommendation that became binding.
The imprisoned population in Gaza are trapped & have been since 2006 – by Israel, which we all know (but resist admitting) is a racist project, whose Basic Law passed in 2018 explicitly states that only Jews are to have voting rights (“self determination”) in Palestine.
The vast majority – living or now dead – of the children born in Gaza have never known a single day of freedom. Not one day!
Israel, with the full backing of the US (& me too’s from Canada) has created and maintained this horrific torture directed at a non-Jewish population. Everything about this situation reeks of ethnic supremacy.
Israel claims all this killing is justified after the October 7, 2023 invasion into Israel, which killed approximately 1400 Israelis. But Palestinians, forced to live in Gaza, have every right to fight back, as best they can. Call it the Warsaw Ghetto rule. Call it, what you would do if you & your family have lived for 17 years in a fenced in ghetto.
Hamas was created with Israeli funds (US funds, most likely) given in support of various Hamas projects. Why? Israel wanted to invent a “religious” entity to compete with the secular Palestinian Authority of Arafat.
Well, arrogant, presumptive Israel got its wish, and is now . . . safe.
Peter, 11/2/23 you write in a comment to me: “This is the first time I have ever heard that UNGA 181 failed in UNSC.” The fact is: 181 was never approved by the UN Security Council and so, the partition of Palestine never became UN policy.
Peter, please see THE REJECTION OF PALESTINIAN SELF-DETERMINATION, by Jeremy R. Hammond (2009). Hammond writes (pp.57-8), “one enduring myth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Israel was created by the UN. This claim is absolutely false. . . only Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding.”
I think we agree. 181 never went to the UNSC. UNGA resolutions are not binding. That has not preventing many Israeli politicians from pointing to it. Abba Eban even used that in UN debate during the ’67 war.
Kattan on whether UNGAR 181 considered binding or not: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3955098
And as I note above, ICJ opinion seems to suggest it was.
“According to Article 10 of the UN Charter which defines the Functions and Powers of the GA, “ The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and,…may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” In other words, resolutions adopted by the GA on agenda items are considered to be recommendations and are not legally binding on the Member States. The only resolutions that have the potential to be legally binding are those that are adopted by the Security Council.” https://www.un.org/en/model-united-nations/how-decisions-are-made-un#:~:text=may%20make%20recommendations%20to%20the,binding%20on%20the%20Member%20States.
I see now the “potentially” was not your phrasing but from the link. What is meant by potentially binding is that states have a great deal of latitude in how they respond to a UNSC resolution. But as well, not all UNSCRes require a (binding) action.