At UN, Of Palestine & Iran Deal, Saudis on Book & Parachutists

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- The quarterly Middle East open debate of the UN Security Council ended with replies by Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Israel again, whose representative Israel Nitzan said, in Arabic, Talk is cheap. (He lived in Egypt, as another Security Council member told Inner City Press.)

  Iran said that Israel had been using the Iranian nuclear program controversy as a smoke-screen to distract from Palestine. Saudi Arabia said Israel "wrote the book" about harming civilians (some say if so, maybe Saudi Arabia has read it, for its campaign in Yemen.)

 Malaysia strongly denied Israel's allegation that Hamas parachutists trained in Malaysia. Inner City Press has been directed to the "IDF Blog" for this, and we may have more on this. For now, here is IDF Blog post, and here a Malaysian publication calling out IDF Blog for saying a Malaysian mall was in Gaza. What's in a mall?

  When it was over, New Zealand's Foreign Minister Murray McCully returned to the Security Council president's office and met with at least one major Asian state. 

  Talk turned to breathless over-reporting of Obama moving out of the ostensibly (only) now bugged Waldorff Astoria, and to John Kerry's trip to New York on July 24 to try to sell the Iran Deal at CFR and organizations named at the June 22 Time Square rally. 

  In UN-world, New Zealand's July 30 debate on Small Island Developing states is on the horizon, with hopes it will not rain that day. Things ended with a whimper and not a bang in the Security Council. But it was only Thursday. Watch this site.

 Earlier on July 23 the UN's Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nickolay Mladenov said or read in the Security Council:

  “The Israeli - Palestinian conflict is increasingly entangled in the tectonic shifts of the Middle East. Given the region's massive transformation, it is imperative, perhaps more than ever before, that a permanent settlement be found, based on the concept of two states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable Palestine, living side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition.

  “Despite continuing security coordination in the West Bank, today the two sides are further apart from that goal than ever. Support for the two-state solution among both Palestinians and Israelis is fading away. The current situation on the ground is not sustainable as the two-state solution continues to be under threat including from settlement construction, security incidents, occupation-related violence, and lack of Palestinian unity.

  “While settlement expansion had slowed of late, planning for related infrastructure has not ceased. I am concerned by reports about the imminent approval of new residential units in the occupied West Bank. Such a decision will inevitably damage the prospects for peace and increase the risk for political escalation. I urge the Israeli authorities to reconsider this action. Settlements are illegal under international law and undermine the very essence of the viability of a future Palestinian state.

  “Meanwhile the Palestinian people rightly expect their leaders to act to advance unity and empower their government to take control of the border crossings in Gaza, implement civil service integration, pay public sector salaries and ensure that the governance framework between the West Bank and Gaza is integrated under a single authority. These efforts will pave the way for much delayed elections to take place. I call on all Palestinian groups to avoid in-fighting and find common ground, on the basis of non-violence and reconciliation, to achieve national unity which is critical for a two-state solution.

  “Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas recently spoke and reaffirmed their desire for peace. This is a welcome sign. But, words need to be translated into concrete and sustained actions on the ground. Measures undertaken to improve the situation must not be considered an end unto themselves but part of a broader political framework with the goal of achieving a final status agreement. Now is the time to act decisively to reverse the growing perception that the two-state solution is on life-support, slowly dying a death 'by a thousand cuts.'"

On July 20 after the UN Security Council held a closed "Arria formula" meeting about Gaza, there was supposed to be a 1:30 pm press conference with three of the people who spoke in the meeting: Sara Roy of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, Vance Culbert of the Norwegian Refugee Council and Tania Hary of Gisha, the  Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, an Israeli NGO.

  But on the morning of July 20 while the Security Council met on and approval the Iran nuclear deal, the UN announced that the press conference on Gaza was canceled.

  Inner City Press went down to Conference Room 3 in the UN basement and asked, when the meeting ended, why there would be no press conference on Gaza. Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour, then the ambassadors of Jordan and Malaysia, indicated they would come up in front of the Security Council and do a question and answer stakeout. Periscope video for now here.

  But up at stakeout, while the UN Television cameras were still there (presumably for a 3 pm meeting about Ukraine), there were no UNTV personnel. Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access went into the UN Spokesperson's office and told a representative that three ambassadors -- Jordan, Malaysia and Palestine - wanted to speak at the stakeout and to send UNTV staff. There was a nod.

  But for twenty minutes, the UN sent no one. In the interim, the Ambassadors of Jordan and Malaysia apologized and left. Riyad Mansour remained and spoke to Inner City Press (broadcasting live on Periscope, here), the New York Post and Kurdish Rudaw media (in Arabic). Sara Roy also left.

  Inner City Press asked Riyad Mansour if he expected any UN Security Council draft to emerge from the meeting; he said to wait for the Council's open debate on the Middle East in three days' time.

  Mansour noted that Security Council's unity in approving the Iran nuclear deal, and said that in the Arria formula meeting on Gaza the Ambassadors of Russia and Spain noted this as well. He said that in the room he'd seen representatives of both Egypt and Israel.

  Inner City Press also asked Mansour about the International Criminal Court. He noted that the ICC has in essence re-opened the case of the Marvi Marmara ships, at the request of Cosmoros and Turkey. Video here. Twenty minutes after the request to the UN, no one came to enable this to be on UNTV as other states at the UN are. We'll have more on this.

There is a lot of talk about the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, but it's funding appeals are not met. And so on June 29, 2015,  this statement from its spokesperson:

"Today UNRWA announced that 85 per cent of all 137 international personnel on short term contracts will be separated in a phased process which will last until the end of September. 35 per cent of the 137 internationals will see their contracts end in the coming four weeks. Another 50 per cent will end by 30 September without further extension or renewal. UNRWA is taking this measure to reduce costs as much as possible without reducing services to refugees. 

"UNRWA has a deficit to the end of the year of 101 million USD and we will continue with our robust efforts in resource mobilization. As things currently stand, with stringent austerity measures already in place beyond today’s announcement, the Agency should be able to continue with life-saving services to the end of the year. These include our health programs, relief and social services, sanitation and emergency projects for which we have funds.  UNRWA’s school system for half a million children across the Middle East in Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territory and Syria are essential but some difficult decisions may be needed in coming weeks if the deficit is not filled."

  We'll have more on this. Back on April 6 amid news that ISIS has taken over most of the UN's Yarmouk camp for Palestinian refugees in Syria, the UN Security Council scheduled an urgent meeting on April 6 at 11:30 am, to get a briefing by video from Pierre Krähenbühl, the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA.

   Inner City Press arrived early, and saw going into the Council the UN's head of Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman. The State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour spoke outside the Security Council, saying “we are concerned about the safety and well-being of our people,  About 2000 were able to run to safety away from the camp on their own. We hope that the Security Council will adopt a position to secure a safety passage through UN agencies to save and protect the 16,000 now in the refugee camp and we hope that all countries will help in securing this objective of safety passage, security passage and for the refugees to be safe.”

  Inner City Press asked Mansour whether he expects a Security Council resolution on the question of Palestine this month. He answered -- video here -- always ready, but that the key is the political will to implement such a resolution. He said that the independence of Palestine would eliminate sixty to seventy percent of extremist recruitment in the Middle East.

  Later, Inner City Press asked UNRWA's Krähenbühl if UNRWA is in contact with ISIS (no) and who he thinks might influence them. His reply -- video here -- cited the “broad spectrum” including of religious leaders. 

 Inner City Press asked where the displaced refugees have gone. He said there are an additional 44,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, not all from Yarmouk. Overall, he said that of 560,000 Palestinians in Syria before, now 460 to 470,000 remain, with half of them having been displaced.

  The Security Council agreed to what's called “Elements to the Press,” which the Council's president for April Dina Kawar of Jordan read out; here's the hard copy, which Inner City Press tweeted in real time:

"The members of the Security Council expressed deep concern regarding the grave situation in the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria.

The members condemned in the strongest terms the grave crimes committed by Daesh and Jabhet al Nusra against 18,000 civilians in the camp and emphasized the need that such crimes do not go unpunished.

The members called for the protection of civilians in the camp, for ensuring humanitarian access to the area including by providing life-saving assistance, and ensure safe passage and evacuation of the civilians.

The members welcomed UNRWA's efforts in protecting and assisting Palestinian refugees and the need for providing UNRWA with the necessary resources to carry out its mandate in Syria, provide providing the necessary life-saving assistance and evacuate civilians.

 The members reminded all parties of their obligations to work toward the safety, security and protections of the civilians in the camp.

The members called on all parties to immediately implement the relevant Security Council resolutions including SCRs 2139, 2165 and 2191 and in line with the international humanitarian law.

The members recalled SCR 2139 which inter alia calls upon all parties to lift the siege of populated areas, demands all parties allow delivery of humanitarian access and enable rapid, safe and unhindered evacuation of civilians.

The members will look into further measures that can be taken to help in providing the necessary protection and assistance."

   

After UNIFIL Peacekeeper Killed, US Issues Statement on Hezbollah

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 28 -- When a UN Peacekeeper from Spainwas killed in Lebanon, the spokesperson for the UN's UNIFIL meeting stopped responding to media questions. On the afternoon of January 28, the US State Department's spokesperson put this out:

"The United States strongly condemns Hezbollah’s attack today from Lebanon on Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in blatant violation of the cease fire between Lebanon and Israel and UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks.  We support Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense and continue to urge all parties to respect the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon.  We urge all parties to refrain from any action that could escalate the situation.

"We are deeply concerned by reports of injuries and casualties on both sides of the Blue Line, including the reported deaths of IDF soldiers and the death of a Spanish UN peacekeeper from the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).  We extend our sincere condolences to the victims’ families.  We also stand with UNIFIL as it fulfills its important mandate to maintain peace and security along the Blue Line.

"Hezbollah continues to incite violence and instability inside Lebanon by attacking Israel and by its presence and fighting inside Syria, which violates Lebanese leaders’ agreed policy of dissociating Lebanon from foreign conflicts."

  But who killed the UN peacekeeper? And what are the UNIFIL Mission's rules of engagement? Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesperson, video here. 

And there will be a briefing by UN Peacekeeping's elusive - we're being diplomatic - chief Herve Ladsous. (Here's video of his last appearance.)

The reports from Lebanon were that Israeli Defense Forces killed the peacekeeper. This raised the stakes for, and some questions about, the United Nations.

   Recently when UN peacekeepers in northern Mali were fired at -- none killed in the incident -- UN Peacekeeping responded with air strikes from attack helicopters, killing five.  Is this only how UN Peacekeeping respond to its personnel being fired at in Africa, or only in Mali?

   Inner City Press asked the Spanish Mission to the UN if there is any UN Security Council statement being worked on. They responded, it is being worked on right now. 

  How will it address who is responsible for the killing? Killing a UN peacekeeper, the Security Council has often said, can be a war crime.

Footnote: While awaiting response to written questions Inner City Press put to the UNIFIL's top four spokespeople, for now they still compare favorably to the UN's mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, whose spokeswoman Sophie Boutaud de la Combe has put many UN Headquarters-based media on the mission's press e-mail list, but hasrefused as to Inner City Press, which closely covers not only cholera in Haiti but also the UN peacekeepers there, as in Mali, firing at protesters.

  The Mali mission at least sends out statements; from MINUSTAH we have only silence. This is the Ladsousification of the UN -- see most recent footage of Ladsous, refusing Press questions about the DR Congo, here. We'll have more on all of this.

    

After IDF Contradicts Ban Ki-moon on Soldier "Captive" of Hamas, No Correction, UN Tells Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 4, more here -- On August 1 at noon in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesman said that an Israeli Defense Forces soldier had been taken captive and that this called "into question the credibility of Hamas' assurances to the United Nations. The Secretary-General demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."

  Later on August 1, a range of UN officials described to Inner City Press the pressure put on Ban to rule that Hamas broke the ceasefire and held captive an IDF soldier.  "How does he know?" one UN official demanded.

   On August 2, the IDF said that the soldier, Hadar Goldin, "was killed in action."  

  So on August 4, with no correction issued by the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Vannina Maestracci if there would be any correction, since Ban's statement was used --

  Maestracci cut off the question, "let me stop you right there," and said that the UN tried to get things right with fast moving events. Video here, and embedded below.

  Fine - but when as here the UN was wrong, aren't they supposed to correct it? Maestracci's colleagues have repeatedly said that they correct the record when necessary. Is that the case? What about this case? Watch this site.

At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced its spokesman Stephane Dujarric would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as Dujarric finished reading the ceasefire statement.

   But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza."  With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.

 Now Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."

  So on August 1 Inner City Press put two questions to UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman. First, would he confirm that Serry spoke with Hamas in Gaza?

   And second, as a former - and future? - US officials, does Feltman think the UN should at least disclose when Ban Ki-moon accepts "in kind" / gifts such as the Qatari-funded private jet he flew on to Doha, to mediate on Gaza.

  Dujarric cut off this question to Feltman, saying that it was already answered. But there is no routine disclosure by the UN. And the impact on the UN's political role is obvious, for example considering that this was the ONLY question asked of Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem (the UN censored it), and it's been asked at the UN Security Council stakeout.

  Dujarric did not answer when asked, shouldn't there be disclosure. He called it "in kind" - but is it subtracted from what Qatar owes or pays the UN in dues?

  Then Feltman refused to say if Serry spoke with Hamas, saying that he wasn't with Serry. So Feltman doesn't know? Or won't say?

 It's one thing for a diplomat from a country to say, that's secret. But since the UN ostensibly represents, works for and is accountable at least to all 193 states, if not to "we the peoples," on what logic are these things secret? We'll have more on this.

   On July 30, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson about UN direct contacts with Hamas, citing Ban Ki-moon accepting Qatar-funded private jet travel to Doha, and Eliasson said "we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas."From the UN's transcript (video here)

Inner City Press: Sure, thanks a lot. Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, thanks for the briefing. It seems like on this immediate end of the fighting, a sticking point is whether the IDF would remain in Gaza at all. It seems like one of the demands is that they leave in order for there to be a cessation. I want to know if the UN… not the whole golden formula, but just on that one point, what your thinking is, and also, whether the UN and Secretary-General should reach out directly to Hamas. I know that, you know, former OCHA head Jan Egeland, you know, he met with Joseph Kony, which is a pretty extreme example, but it seems like at this point, given that speaking with Mahmoud Abbas may not actually directly relate to the rockets that are being fired. Is there any thought of the Secretary-General reaching out directly to Hamas leadership, especially since he flew on this Qatar-funded plane to Doha and could probably set up such a meeting? What’s your thinking on that? Thank you.

Deputy Secretary-General: We have channels, very strong channels, both, of course, to Egypt, which is working very closely with Israel, but also very close contacts with both Turkey and Qatar, who have close relationships to Hamas. And the Secretary-General has worked extremely intensely with these different actors. And we hope that the combined efforts from Egypt and Turkey and Qatar, and of course, the United States, which has been working very, very hard and very closely with the Secretary-General on the humanitarian ceasefire issue, that these attempts will be successful. And we hope that both sides will understand that the Secretary-General’s proposals are still on the table. They are always there. The Israeli Security Cabinet met yesterday and I made sure that Ambassador [Ron] Prosor was aware of the fact that the [Secretary-General’s] proposal for a humanitarian ceasefire, whether it was for a week or 24 hours or 72 hours, would be there and considered on the table. But, we are in contact closely with all the other actors. So, we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas.

   So what changed? Or did the "we" mean only Ban and his deputy Eliasson? We'll have more on this.

    Earlier on July 31, after the UN Security Council met for five hours, in the wake of the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalya, what emerged were mere "elements to the press" - the weakest form of Security Council action.

  The "press elements" consist of 77 words, not one of which is "school." Inner City Press listened and transcribed it:

“Council members expressed their grave disappointment that the messages in the Presidential Statement of 28 July have not been heeded. They reiterated in the strongest terms their expectation that the PRST must be implemented Council members called for an immediate unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, that can lead to a sustainable ceasefire, based upon the Egyptian proposal. Pending this, Council members encouraged the use of humanitarian pauses. They called on member states to donate to UNRWA's flash appeal.”

   Earlier on July 31 when UN Relief and Works Agency chief Pierre Krahenbuhl called in on July 31 to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to explain a sentence from his earlier briefing to UN Security Council.

   Krahenbul told the Council, "should further large scale displacements indeed occur, the Occupying Power, according to International Humanitarian Law, will have to assume direct responsibility to assist these people."

  Inner City Press asked Krahenbuhl to explain this, also if UNRWA is thinking of seeking reimbursement for destruction from Israel, and if he is aware of the European Union seeking reimbursement for the destruction of EU-funded projects.

   On reimbursement, Krahenbuhl said there is a precedent, from Operations Cast Lead, but it is too early to look into it on this, "Protective Edge."

   While continuing to parse Krahenbuhl's response on Occupation, the general (assembly) theory is that duties as Occupying Power were delegated or outsourced to UNRWA when it was created by the UN General Assembly.  It seems the duties could be handed back. But how would non-compliance with or non-fulfillment of these duties be enforced? 

Just capitalizing letters in a legal phrase doesn't make it so.

   Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.

  Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).

  Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).

  Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.

  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."

  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 

  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:

"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."

  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.

 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called the draft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.

  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 

  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?

  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about the different drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.

  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.

 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.

  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  

  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 

   But the versions leaked by each side were different.

  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.

  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.

  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?

  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)

  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.

   

After UN's Ban Ki-moon Said Hamas Had IDF Soldier Captive, IDF Says He Died First

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 2, more here -- On August 1 at noon in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesman said that the an Israeli Defense Forces soldier had been taken captive and that this called "into question the credibility of Hamas' assurances to the United Nations. The Secretary-General demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."

  Later on August 1, a range of UN official described to Inner City Press the pressure put on Ban to rule that Hamas broke the ceasefire and held captive an IDF soldier.  "How does he know?" one UN official demanded.

   Now on August 3, the IDF says that the soldier, Hadar Goldin, "was killed in action." 

 

  So will there be a second Ban Ki-moon statement? What will the pressure be this time? 

At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced its spokesman Stephane Dujarric would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as Dujarric finished reading the ceasefire statement.

   But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza."  With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.

 Now Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."

  So on August 1 Inner City Press put two questions to UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman. First, would he confirm that Serry spoke with Hamas in Gaza?

   And second, as a former - and future? - US officials, does Feltman think the UN should at least disclose when Ban Ki-moon accepts "in kind" / gifts such as the Qatari-funded private jet he flew on to Doha, to mediate on Gaza.

  Dujarric cut off this question to Feltman, saying that it was already answered. But there is no routine disclosure by the UN. And the impact on the UN's political role is obvious, for example considering that this was the ONLY question asked of Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem (the UN censored it), and it's been asked at the UN Security Council stakeout.

  Dujarric did not answer when asked, shouldn't there be disclosure. He called it "in kind" - but is it subtracted from what Qatar owes or pays the UN in dues?

  Then Feltman refused to say if Serry spoke with Hamas, saying that he wasn't with Serry. So Feltman doesn't know? Or won't say?

 It's one thing for a diplomat from a country to say, that's secret. But since the UN ostensibly represents, works for and is accountable at least to all 193 states, if not to "we the peoples," on what logic are these things secret? We'll have more on this.

   On July 30, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson about UN direct contacts with Hamas, citing Ban Ki-moon accepting Qatar-funded private jet travel to Doha, and Eliasson said "we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas." From the UN's transcript (video here)

Inner City Press: Sure, thanks a lot. Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, thanks for the briefing. It seems like on this immediate end of the fighting, a sticking point is whether the IDF would remain in Gaza at all. It seems like one of the demands is that they leave in order for there to be a cessation. I want to know if the UN… not the whole golden formula, but just on that one point, what your thinking is, and also, whether the UN and Secretary-General should reach out directly to Hamas. I know that, you know, former OCHA head Jan Egeland, you know, he met with Joseph Kony, which is a pretty extreme example, but it seems like at this point, given that speaking with Mahmoud Abbas may not actually directly relate to the rockets that are being fired. Is there any thought of the Secretary-General reaching out directly to Hamas leadership, especially since he flew on this Qatar-funded plane to Doha and could probably set up such a meeting? What’s your thinking on that? Thank you.

Deputy Secretary-General: We have channels, very strong channels, both, of course, to Egypt, which is working very closely with Israel, but also very close contacts with both Turkey and Qatar, who have close relationships to Hamas. And the Secretary-General has worked extremely intensely with these different actors. And we hope that the combined efforts from Egypt and Turkey and Qatar, and of course, the United States, which has been working very, very hard and very closely with the Secretary-General on the humanitarian ceasefire issue, that these attempts will be successful. And we hope that both sides will understand that the Secretary-General’s proposals are still on the table. They are always there. The Israeli Security Cabinet met yesterday and I made sure that Ambassador [Ron] Prosor was aware of the fact that the [Secretary-General’s] proposal for a humanitarian ceasefire, whether it was for a week or 24 hours or 72 hours, would be there and considered on the table. But, we are in contact closely with all the other actors. So, we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas.

   So what changed? Or did the "we" mean only Ban and his deputy Eliasson? We'll have more on this.

    Earlier on July 31, after the UN Security Council met for five hours, in the wake of the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalya, what emerged were mere "elements to the press" - the weakest form of Security Council action.

  The "press elements" consist of 77 words, not one of which is "school." Inner City Press listened and transcribed it:

“Council members expressed their grave disappointment that the messages in the Presidential Statement of 28 July have not been heeded. They reiterated in the strongest terms their expectation that the PRST must be implemented Council members called for an immediate unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, that can lead to a sustainable ceasefire, based upon the Egyptian proposal. Pending this, Council members encouraged the use of humanitarian pauses. They called on member states to donate to UNRWA's flash appeal.”

   Earlier on July 31 when UN Relief and Works Agency chief Pierre Krahenbuhl called in on July 31 to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to explain a sentence from his earlier briefing to UN Security Council.

   Krahenbul told the Council, "should further large scale displacements indeed occur, the Occupying Power, according to International Humanitarian Law, will have to assume direct responsibility to assist these people."

  Inner City Press asked Krahenbuhl to explain this, also if UNRWA is thinking of seeking reimbursement for destruction from Israel, and if he is aware of the European Union seeking reimbursement for the destruction of EU-funded projects.

   On reimbursement, Krahenbuhl said there is a precedent, from Operations Cast Lead, but it is too early to look into it on this, "Protective Edge."

   While continuing to parse Krahenbuhl's response on Occupation, the general (assembly) theory is that duties as Occupying Power were delegated or outsourced to UNRWA when it was created by the UN General Assembly.  It seems the duties could be handed back. But how would non-compliance with or non-fulfillment of these duties be enforced? 

Just capitalizing letters in a legal phrase doesn't make it so.

   Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.

  Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).

  Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).

  Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.

  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."

  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 

  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:

"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."

  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.

 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called thedraft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.

  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 

  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?

  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about thedifferent drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.

  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.

 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.

  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  

  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 

   But the versions leaked by each side were different.

  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.

  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.

  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?

  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)

  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.