By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, 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?
, 
