Palestine's Mansour Visits Rose Garden Flagpole, Tashlich Ceremony Proceeds

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 21 -- The Observer State of Palestine's Riyad Mansour came to visit the flagpole in the UN Rose Garden up which his flag will rise on September 30, and asked Inner City Press, What's that?

  On the lawn beside the Rose Garden was a Tashlich ceremony organized by the Israeli mission to the UN, beginning with remarks by outgoing Israeli Permanent Representative Ron Prosor.

  Contrary to what some in the crowd on the UN lawn quickly concluded, Mansour was not joining the ceremony. He wondered if those who come to the flag raising on September 30 will stand so far back on the walkway. 

 Inner City Press tweeted photos, then Periscoped some of the Tashlich ceremony, attended by (among others) the Permanent Representatives of Ukraine, Argentina, Germany, Norway, Brazil, Palau and UN officials Kim Won-soo, Atule Khare and the UN's top lawyer. Helicopters whirled overhead, and a Coast Guard ship out on the river. The UN General Assembly week came near.

 The UN draft resolution to fly the State of Palestine's flag in front of the UN passed on September 10, 119 in favor, 45 abstaining and eight against: the United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, Tuvalu, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Inner City Press put the UN voting sheet online here.

  There were also countries which didn't vote at all, like Uganda, Haiti, Georgia, Malawi, South Sudan and, strangely, Yemen. Iraq's Permanent Representative said all Arab Group members supported the draft; Yemen's representative was in the building, Inner City Press saw and greeted him. What happened?

Update: Inner City Press went to the UN General Assembly stakeout after the meeting (Periscope video here, including Palestine's Permanent Observer Mansour speaking) and asked Iraq's Ambassador about Yemen not voting; it was explained as a problem of Yemen being behind on its dues to the UN.

  The resolution states that it is “taking note of the participation of non-member Observer States, which maintain permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters, in the sessions and work of the General Assembly, recalling that the State of Palestine became a non-member Observer State at the United Nations on 29 November 2012, and recalling also in this regard its resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 and previous relevant resolutions.”

   The adopted resolution “decides that the flags of non-member Observer States at the United Nations maintaining permanent observer missions at Headquarters shall be raised at the United Nations Headquarters and Offices following the flags of the Member States of the United Nations and requests the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary measures for the implementation of this resolution during the seventieth session of the General Assembly and within 20 days of the adoption of this resolution.”

 After the vote, for example, Sweden explained why it voted Yes; Netherlands said why it abstained. The two, and Italy, will vie for two WEOG seats on the UN Security Council.

On August 28, the Holy See / Vatican has issued this:

“In accordance with the rules governing the General Assembly no Member or Observer State is entitled to oppose the tabling of a draft resolution by a Member State. In light of this, the Holy See does not object to the tabling of a draft resolution concerning the raising of the flags of Observer States at the UN Headquarters and offices.

“The Holy See, however, notes the long established praxis and tradition of the UN, sing 1945, whereby only flags of member States are displayed at the UN Headquarters and offices and will accept whatever  decision the UN may wish to take in this regard in the future.”

  Got it?

  Staking out the August 27 Arab Group meeting, Inner City Press was told by two major Arab states that the flag will "definitely" go up, and was reliably informed that the flag for Palestine would go after those of ("full") member states, that is near 42nd Street in front of the UN Library building.

  Inner City Press asked an involved delegation if the UN was ready with the flag pole and was told yes, a letter has been sent to that effect.

  Much earlier, anti-flag delegations were pitching the story, which was eventually picked up.

 On both August 27 and again on August 28, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's office of the spokesperson:

"Yesterday, Inner City Press was told in but not by the UN that if the draft resolution on raising the State of Palestine's flag at the UN passes, (1) it would go at the end of Member States, that is, nearest 42nd street and (2) that 'the UN' has written a letter concerning its readiness to install the needed flagpole.

 "I understand you will not comment on what may happen in the GA but I am requesting UN Secretariat (Protocol, OLA and/or DM/FMS) confirmation of where a non-member State's flag WOULD go, and on readiness to install the flagpole including that a letter to that effect has been written and sent."

 The UN has refused to answer that question, for more than 24 hours.

 On August 27, a meeting on the Diplomacy of Pope Francis, scheduled at 4 pm in Conference Room 3, waslisted as "Closed." (There was another 4 pm event upstairs at the UN.)

Back on June 18 after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided not to list Israel or Hamas in the annex of his Children and Armed Conflict report -- nor the French troops alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic -- Ban came to the UN Security Council media stakeout, accompanied by CAAC expert Leila Zerrougui. But he answered no questions.

  On June 24, the UN's Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman addressed the Security Council, saying:

“The Secretary General took note of the release on Monday of the Human Rights Council's independent Commission of Inquiry's report on Gaza. While we do not comment on the substance of such reports, it is our hope that it will contribute to bringing justice to victims of last year's war and encourage the parties to engage in serious and credible examinations of their own behavior." 

  But is that credible? Down in UN Conference Room 3, US, joined only by Canada, voted with Israel against a UN Budget resolution on Lebanon and the attack on Qana; upstairs, the US' representative left the Council with Feltman and got on the same elevator with him. Periscope video here available for 24 hours, after 470 live views. Geneva may well tilt one way, but the Secretariat tilts the other. Watch this site.

  Back on June 18 after Ban read a statement about climate change and then the "controversy" about his report, he said he had to leave. There were some grumbles; Inner City Press asked, about the Central African Republic rapes and cover up, what about the Panel? Ban did not answer. Periscope video for now here.

  Zerrougui stayed, gamely; she declined to answer about the non-inclusion of Israel. Inner City Press asked her about the CAR rapes and cover up. She said while she didn't find out all in time, once she did, she spoke with the government concerned.

  Inner City Press reported exclusively that Zerrougui met French Ambassador Francois Delattre -- his Mission declined to confirm or deny, when asked in writing by Inner City Press - but what has come of it? 

  And what of the CAR rapes by the French troops? They are mentioned in the text of the report, but not in the Annex. Ban said a Panel would be set up- but hasn't yet done it.

 Inner City Press is exclusively informed that concerned member states will meet not with Ban but his Deputy Jan Eliasson on June 19. Some are concerned Ban might even try to put Eliasson on the "independent" panel, despite controversy about an August 8, 2014 email saying Eliasson would be briefed that afternoon about the CAR rapes. (The UN now says Eliasson didn't learn of them until April 2015.)  We'll see.

   

Iran Deal Approved 15-0 by UNSC, Power Speaks, Of Israel's Ron Prosor & Times Square

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- The Iran Deal draft resolution was adopted by the UN Security Council 15-0 at 9 am on Monday. This came the day after a slew of US members of Congress said the UN vote should wait for their 60 day review, and two days before a protest of the deal to be held in Times Square seven blocks west of the UN in Manhattan.

  In speeches after the unanimous vote, Russia's Vitaly Churkin shouted out Kazakhstan as well as Austria and Switzerland, which hosted the talks. US Samantha Power vowed to pursue Iran on others issues. Iranian ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo was to speak inside the Security Council, then Israel's Ron Prosor outside at the stakeout.

  The day after the Iran Deal was announced in Vienna by the EU's Federica Mogherini then Iran's Javad Zarif, on July 15 a draft resolution was circulated in the UN Security Council, with paragraphs on sanctions snap-back and other provisions. Inner City Press put the draft, obtained from multiple sources, online here.

  As detailed below, the vote is set for July 20, 9 am in New York.

 On the US Sunday morning political talk shows, not only Republican Senator from Wyoming John Barrasso but also Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland said the Obama administration shouldn't take the deal to the UN until Congress considers it. Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas, speaking from London, said the same, citing Cardin and Steny Hoyer.

 On July 19, the US State Department in Washington said:

"Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, today the State Department transmitted to Congress the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its annexes, and related materials. These documents include the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report, as required under the law. Therefore, Day One of the 60-day review period begins tomorrow, Monday, July 20."

  Then at 5 pm on July 16, Inner City Press reported that the UNSC vote on the draft would occur on Monday, July 20 at 9 am.

  Hours later, the UN confirmed this, and a US Mission spokesperson tweeted the timing. Reuters, typically, then published a story quoting an UNnamed "U.S. official" on the timing; the CBS former head of the UN Censorship Alliance echoed the timing targeting the P3 with nothing but photos. (The current head of the Censorship Alliancewas invisible, checked out.)

  This is how the UN works, or doesn't. At the underlying UNSC experts' meeting there were only two journalists. But Western missions served up information later to non-present correspondents, who by quoting unnamed sources seemed knowledgeable. This is today's UN.

  On July 16, the Security Council's 15 members at the Expert level met about the draft. Inner City Press and one other journalist staked-out the meeting (Periscope video for now here), held in basement Conference Room 8 and afterward asked attendees what the next step would be. 

  While several said "No comment" -- since it will presumably help them, including the US Legal Expert and a former French mission spokesman -- from others Inner City Press was told of a 9 am Monday July 20 vote on the resolution.

  It was said that France was pushing for a weekend vote, on Sunday, related to Foreign Minister Fabius desire to travel to Tehran with the vote already done. This was resisted - now, 9 am Monday, before a Security Council Arria formula meeting about Gaza, sponsored by Malaysia and Jordan. Watch this site.

  Here embeddd is the draft. Operative Paragraphs 11, 12and 15 bear particular interest, with their purported automaticity. See also, InnerCityPro.com.

Iran Deal Draft UNSC Resolution as Uploaded by Inner City Press byMatthew Russell Lee

   On July 14 the US White House held a background press call, "embargoed until conclusion." This meant, no tweets. But on the call, after Reuters asked a softball about Obama's involvement, several Senior Administration Officials gushed about Obama's calls to Vienna, updates from Susan Rice, concern for Israel's security.

  It was said Obama would not only call Netanyahu but also of course the King of Saudi Arabia. (He did both, adding Russia's Putin as well.)

   Earlier on July 14, Ban Ki-moon chimed in nearly immediately to welcome the deal. This stood in contrast to his 60 hour silence after his own faux Yemen Deal failed amid airstrikes. Success has many wannabe parents; UNsuccessful many fewer.

 Obama from Washington at 7 am said he will veto any legislation slowing this down; The Elders chaired by Kofi Annan spoke quickly against any “ideological preconceptions [or] narrow political interests.”

  Journalists camped out under the Evita-like balcony of the Coburg Hotel for more than two weeks gushed about UN Security Council action "in days," as France's Fabius put it. Now we know why. Watch this site 

  Previously as the Iran P5+1 talks continued on the eve of the then-deadline, who was bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."

 While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.

  On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for havingchampioned a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.

  Some of this goes beyond a desire, compensated by editor Adler, to claim exclusives even where not merited (including by adopted a policy of not crediting others' exclusives).  At the UN, Reuters has gone so far as to try to censor and remove from Google's Search as "copyrighted" copies of Reuters complaints against other media filed with the UN, click here for that. 

 At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.

  Back on October 27, 2014 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.

  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.

 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.

   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights.  Now what?

Footnote: on October 27, 2014, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.

   

In UNSC, Iran and Israel, Syria and Turkey Trade Replies Past 8 PM as UN Secretariat Sells UNdiplomatic Books

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 23 -- When China as president of the UN Security Council for February scheduled a debate to “Reflect on history, reaffirm the strong commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN,” 75 countries originally signed up to speak -- then five more came in at the end.

  After that, the debate came to a bitter in with rights of reply or "further statements" by Iran, Syria, Turkey and Israel. (Azerbaijan and Armenia had already traded shots in the regular debate).

  Israel's Ron Prosor had mock-awarded Oscars during his speech. Saudi Arabia responded with a "worst actor" award for Israel, citing the Occupation. Israel followed up calling this a march of folly of despots attacking a democracy.

  Syria said Turkey's incursion to relocate a shrine violated the UN Charter, the ostensible topic of the debate. When Turkey took the floor is was to tell Armenia that genocide is a "legitimate subject of scholarly debate," and to note that the Turkish Cypriot were able to be heard in the Security Council debate.

  Neither were many other groups, including just for example people from Western Sahara, Tamils from Sri Lanka, and others. Palestine was spoken about, but did not speak. But it was a more interesting debate that usual, in the Council.

 This didn't stop the wan UN Correspondents Association from scheduling a book-selling event during the speeches by South Africa, Algeria and Iran. Inner City Press noted it; an Italian diplomat descended to note that Sebastiano Cardi was away from UNHQ on official work (already duly noted). Italy's speech didn't mention it is running for a Security Council seat in 2017-18, while the Netherlands' did. Different approaches.

   Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov slammed not only the occupation of Iraq, but also events in Kiev in the last year.

   Later, after the 15 Council members had all spoken, Ukraine's Pavlo Klimkin said his country is considering “requesting the United Nations to deploy a peacekeeping operation in Ukraine.”

   Klimkin was scheduled to meet with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon later on Monday. But the UN's read-out of Ban's telephone call with Klimkin on February 20 said that “on the possibility of peacekeeping mission in eastern Ukraine, the Secretary-General informed the Foreign Minister that the United Nations would stand guided by any decision the Security Council would make on this issue.”

  Lavrov's meeting with Ban had been scheduled to begin at noon, and he only came out of the elevator back onto the second floor at 12:45 pm. A forty five minute meeting with Ban? How long would Klimkin get?

  Five hours after the meeting, the UN Spokesman, involved in the book-selling event in the UN Censorship Alliance during Iran's speech, had yet to issue a read-out.

   Before Klimkin's speech, US Ambassador Samantha Power spoke not only on Ukraine and Syria but also Sudan, noting that the Security Council was silent when Sudan blocked UNAMID access to investigate the rapes in Tabit, at least for the second time. That's true. But didn't the US just lift some sanctions on Sudan?

  Power also noted, as Ban Ki-moon as opening speaker had, that the UN Charter starts “We the peoples.” Has the US tried to get a UN Freedom of Information Act, for peoples? That's what the Free UN Coalition for Access ispushing for.

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi said some “even attempt to... whitewash past crimes of aggression.”

   While his reference seemed directed at Japan, when he came to the stakeout and said he had time for two questions, the head of UNCA -- the UN's Censorship Alliance -- bumbled through two questions without asking about this. Instead he asked, or seemed to ask, do you think Syria can transition without Assad?

   These set-aside questions, to a FOIA-exposed censor, is not consistent with press freedom.

  Ambassador Power linked UN Peacekeeping and human rights. Inner City Press has exclusively asked, in print and at the UN's noon briefing, does DPKO under Herve Ladsous use human rights abusers, for example from Bangladesh?

   Speaking of peacekeeping, Spain's Ignacio Ybanez talked about UN principles. One waited to hear of peacekeeper killed in Lebanon: will that report be made public?

 The UK's Mark Lyall Grant cited the Peace Operations Review. Will that address the sale of posts in DR Congo & Haiti? 

  Venezuela's Delcy Rodriguez said Palestine must be a full member of the UN, under international law.

   New Zealand's Murray McCully said that the UNSC agenda is jammed up with bureaucratic briefings rather than real deliberation - entirely true.  And so it goes at the UN.

   

On Gaza, Inner City Press Asks Israel's Ron Prosor of Blockade, Palestine's Riyad Mansour of US Ammo Transfer

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 31 -- Outside the UN Security Council on July 31, 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 the call to end the blockade of Gaza called for in the Council by the Commissioner General of UNRWA, Pierre Krähenbühl. (He briefed the Council by audio from Gaza City, while Valerie Amos briefed by video from UNDP Trinidad and Tobago.)

  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 Wednesday, 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?  

     As to the UNSC, here's the PRST as provided - and adopted:

UNSC Presidential Statement

The Security Council expresses grave concern regarding the deterioration in the situation  as a result of the crisis related to Gaza and the loss of civilian lives and casualties.

The Security Council calls for full respect of international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and their protection.

The Security Council expresses strong support for the call by international partners and the Secretary-General of the United Nations for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, allowing for the delivery of urgently needed assistance, and they urged all parties to accept and fully implement the humanitarian ceasefire into the Eid period and beyond. The Security Council commends the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for their efforts in this regard.

The Security Council also calls on parties to engage in efforts to achieve a durable and fully respected ceasefire, based on the Egyptian initiative. In this regard, the Security Council welcomes the efforts of international partners and the convening of the international meeting to support the ceasefire held in Paris on July 26, 2014 and urges all concerned regional and international parties to vigorously support efforts to consolidate an agreement between the parties.

The Security Council emphasizes that civilian and humanitarian facilities, including those of the UN, must be respected and protected, and called on all parties to act consistently with this principle.

The Security Council calls for the full implementation of resolution 1860 (2009) and stressed the need for immediate provision of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip, including through urgent additional contribution to UNRWA. The Security Council recognizes and commends the vital role played by the Agency, along with other United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations, in addressing the critical humanitarian needs in Gaza.

The Security Council urges the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders as envisioned  in Security Council resolution 1850 (2008).

  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.

   

On Gaza, Inner City Press Asks Why No UN Ban Ki-moon Direct Outreach to Hamas, Citing Qatar-Funded Jet; Not Needed, DSG Says

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 30 -- On Gaza when the UN's Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson and John Ging took questions on July 30, Inner City Press asked why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has not directly reached out to Hamas, particularly since his flying to Doha on a Qatar-funded private jet would imply such a meeting could easily be arranged.

  Eliasson replied that “we have channels to Egypt, which is working closely with Israel, but also close contacts with Turkey and Qatar, which have relations with Hamas. The SG has worked intensely with these actors. We hope that the combined efforts from Egypt and Turkey and Qatar -- and the US which has been working very hard, and closing with SG -- that these attempts will be successful.”

  Citing the July 29 meeting of Israel's security cabinet, Eliasson said he personally made sure Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor “was aware that the SG's proposal were on the table... We are in contact with all the other actors. We don't feel any need at this stage to be in direct contact with Hamas.”

  Inner City Press began a follow-up question, like the UN Spokesman allowed to many others including the set-aside first questioner, but it was disallowed. There remain numerous unanswered questions about Ban accepting free private jet travel from member states with stakes in the conflicts being mediated.

  There's more to be said about how the questioning was run, including the first question set-aside and failure to hold a regular briefing to take for example questions on Africa and peacekeeping. Both failures and favoritism are opposed by the Free UN Coalition for Access which spoke quite audibly, for the record - and transcript when it comes out, watch this site.

  John Ging said that 249 children have been killed so far, 21% of those killed. He said that this time there have been four times more people displaced than in previous round(s). So far. Watch this site.

   

On Gaza After UN Security Council Adopts Midnight Presidential Statement, Inner City Press Asks Jordan About Resolution, Prosor of Israel about Leaked Drafts

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 28 -- After the UN Security Council called no vote on a draft resolution on Gaza pending for the last nine days, at midnight on Sunday, July 27 (or Monday, July 28) the 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?  

     As to the UNSC, here's the PRST as provided - and adopted:

UNSC Presidential Statement

The Security Council expresses grave concern regarding the deterioration in the situation  as a result of the crisis related to Gaza and the loss of civilian lives and casualties.

The Security Council calls for full respect of international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and their protection.

The Security Council expresses strong support for the call by international partners and the Secretary-General of the United Nations for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, allowing for the delivery of urgently needed assistance, and they urged all parties to accept and fully implement the humanitarian ceasefire into the Eid period and beyond. The Security Council commends the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for their efforts in this regard.

The Security Council also calls on parties to engage in efforts to achieve a durable and fully respected ceasefire, based on the Egyptian initiative. In this regard, the Security Council welcomes the efforts of international partners and the convening of the international meeting to support the ceasefire held in Paris on July 26, 2014 and urges all concerned regional and international parties to vigorously support efforts to consolidate an agreement between the parties.

The Security Council emphasizes that civilian and humanitarian facilities, including those of the UN, must be respected and protected, and called on all parties to act consistently with this principle.

The Security Council calls for the full implementation of resolution 1860 (2009) and stressed the need for immediate provision of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip, including through urgent additional contribution to UNRWA. The Security Council recognizes and commends the vital role played by the Agency, along with other United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations, in addressing the critical humanitarian needs in Gaza.

The Security Council urges the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders as envisioned  in Security Council resolution 1850 (2008).

  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.