Where were the Iraq Elections Monitors?

On March 7, Iraq held parliamentary elections amid a mysterious absence of international monitors. In spite of many subsequent press articles about contested results, silence has prevailed about the missing monitors. Why would human rights organizations and monitoring agencies ignore such a major election? And why would they not take up the story as news of problems has emerged?

The main Iraqi parties and candidates have all charged that the election was dishonest and unfair. Some have said that the US embassy and the CIA were working to promote the election of Iyad Allawi, the leader of the anti-Maliki bloc. Allawi was named by the US to the Iraqi Interim Governing Council, set up soon after the occupation began. He is reliably said to have long been on the payroll of the CIA and British intelligence. Charges have been made against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, too, for fraudulent or very dubious election maneuvers, including denials of candidate status for persons on the basis of their religious affiliation or former Baath Party connection.

While some of the election problems are known, we know little about the activities in the polling stations, or on the streets, on election day. Little has been reported about the freedom of the electoral campaign, for that matter. Curiously, reporters have scarcely ever asked why we have so little reliable information about the situation on the ground and why independent international election monitors stayed away.

Washington insists that electoral polls are the centerpiece of democracy. Yet the usual monitoring organizations in the US, like the Carter Center, the International Republican Institute and others, decided not to engage. Adding to the mystery, the Europeans didn't do their usual strong monitoring contingent either. Nor did the big human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) act vigorously in assessing the election process and calling for more international scrutiny.

Danger and difficulty simply cannot be an excuse for this lapse. After all, international monitors closely followed elections in Palestine and in Afghanistan, places that posed many more challenges (and expense) than Iraq.

After the findings of scandal during the elections in Afghanistan, did the usual watchdogs decide to give this one as pass? Or did USAID simply refuse to pay for scrutiny this time around? And what did the United Nations find out, since its UNAMI assistance mission was involved in the election process? UN Iraq envoy Ad Meikert has said that the elections were not fundamentally flawed, but we all remember that the UN also gave its stamp of approval to the fatally-flawed Afghan polls.

We need serious and reliable answers about the Iraq elections and there are honest Iraqis who could provide them. Otherwise, it will be tempting to conclude that dirty tricks prevailed, that a cover-up may have been put in place, and that the famous "sovereignty" of Iraq may still be a long way away.

Media Coverage Misrepresents Yemen's Real Problems

Yemen has found itself splashed all over the news again following the failed attack on the British ambassador, Tim Torlot, in Sa'ana. The last time Yemen enjoyed such media popularity was when Omar al-Farouk, a Yemeni-trained Al Qaeda operative, failed to explode a plane en route to Detroit in December 2009. Media focus on isolated violent incidents threatens to divert attention from Yemen's real troubles.

Yemen's most pressing problems are not violent fundamentalism; rather, rapid population growth, high illiteracy, a devaluing currency, a corrupt and ineffective government, chronic water scarcity and a dangerous qat addiction are this country's real enemies. 

The US more than doubled its military assistance to Yemen this year, taking it to more than $150 million. This monumental sum would be better spent building schools, creating sustainable water infrastructures and shifting agricultural practices away from qat cultivation. After all, it is estimated that there are only around 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen anyway! 

The structural issues at the heart of Yemen's troubles are starting to be understood. Even David Miliband, UK Foreign Secretary, who heads the "Friends of Yemen", has opined that: "the assault on Yemen's problems cannot begin and end with its security challenges and its counter-terrorism strategy." 

The diplomat bomber has put Yemen back on the map for all the wrong reasons. The attack runs the risk of undermining the development investment this country badly needs. If the media continue to focus on violence, terrorism and fundamentalism they risk creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Profit at Any Cost

Eritrea is on the verge of political and economic collapse. Foreign mining companies provide a controversial life-line to this country's corrupt and increasingly repressive government, led by President Isaias Afewerki. The foreign companies - from Canada, Britain, China, Australia and Bermuda - are complicit partners in this East African country's unsavory politics and appalling labor conditions.

Like many African countries, Eritrea is laden with sought-after natural resources. Rich deposits of gold, silver, copper and zinc have attracted numerous companies from the global North. The mining companies are encouraged by Afewerki's low-cost requirements for mining rights. In neighboring Sudan and Egypt, the governments own fifty-percent and sixty-percent of mining rights respectively; whereas, in Eritrea state participation can be as low as ten-percent!

A more sinister issue lies at the heart of these foreign mining ventures: working conditions comparable to slavery.

Foreign mining firms rely on local labor - mostly subcontracted by government owned companies. These workers are "recruited" through a "national service" program - which controls a workforce that has risen to around 300,000. Those enrolled are paid a pitiful $12 a month. The foreign mining companies pay the government up to $300 a month for these workers, allowing Afewerki and his cronies to pocket the $288 difference.

The much-trumpeted "corporate social responsibility" of mining companies in Eritrea - like Nevsun Resources Ltd., Andiamo Exploration, London Africa, Zhongchang Mining and Sub Sahara Resources - is clearly nothing but veneer. There is nothing responsible about siphoning millions of dollars from a country in desperate need, supporting a corrupt and repressive regime and encouraging abhorrent labor practices.

A New US Dollar

On April 23, the US government introduced with great fanfare a new $100 bill.  Officials bragged about the clever printing innovations that would make the bills extremely difficult - if not impossible - to counterfeit.  The new product reflects a steadily-growing number of $100 bills in circulation - even though US citizens overwhelmingly use smaller bills, and ATMs rarely (if ever) dispense such big notes.

Most $100 bills circulate outside US national territory. Dollar bills are used nearly everywhere as a parallel means of exchange, especially in countries with weak and unstable currencies. In particular, the dollar is favored for corrupt deals and criminal operations, where cash often changes hands in suitcases or under the table.  Demand has been so brisk, that the US Treasury has kept the printing presses busy. Bills of $100 denomination or larger have increased by about $275 billion since the beginning of 2002, according to the New York Times. 

It appears that the US government is exporting about $30 billion per years in bank notes to the rest of the world.  Considering that the cost of producing these notes is relatively low, this gives the US a much-needed boost in its chronically unbalanced international payments, which in 2009 were $419 billion in the red.  The new bill apparently aims to shore up this valuable export market.

In the recent past, there have been many critics of the dollar as the world’s major currency.  The dollar is losing some of its luster as a universal store of value.  Large-denomination euro bills are now coming into favor.  In fact, circulation of large euro notes has increased about $600 billion in value since 2002, about twice the value increase of the large-denomination US dollar notes.  Clearly, people are not as keen on the dollar as they used to be.

Though slipping, US currency exports still continue to be a big and even vital business, and Washington hopes to keep it that way. 

Dollar notes are more than payment balances.  They are also convenient tools of foreign policy.  In the 1990s, Washington engaged in wholesale exports of dollars to complete with the Russian ruble.  According to press reports at the time, a jumbo cargo jet departed every week from Kennedy Airport, bound for Moscow, packed with crates of newly-printed $100 bills, direct from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  Tens of billions of dollars found their way into the Russian economy by this aerial route, feeding the underground deals of the new oligarchs.

Washington also used greenbacks to finance the new government it created in Afghanistan with hundreds of millions in cash.  And soon after ousting Saddam Hussein, US authorities organized an airlift of currency to pay for expenses of the occupation government in Iraq. According to a later Congressional investigation, US Air Force C130 Hercules cargo planes ferried more than $12 billion in newly-printed US currency from New York to Baghdad. In just over a year, from May 2003 through June 2004, 363 tons of US currency crossed the ocean to Iraq in shrink-wrapped plastic containers.  The great majority of notes in these operations were in the $100 denomination.

The dollar is still big business and the printing presses keep on rolling.  The new hundred dollar note is a move to boost the dollar’s mystique, at a time when the greenback is losing its global standing.  But it will take more than a fancy print job to return the dollar to its former glory.

Women Farmers, Peasant Movements and Land Grabbers

Yesterday, Earth Day, the United Nations recognized the central role of women farmers in feeding the world. The speakers at a special event on this subject were not the usual diplomats and experts, but instead dynamic and outspoken women farmers from a number of countries. They told the large audience that the majority of the world’s food is produced by smallholders, not by large, industrial farms. Also, they affirmed that women run the great majority of smallholder farms.

Increasingly, the women food producers have formed regional and international networks and they have developed considerable political clout. They have pressed their governments for more favorable policies, such as rights to own land, rights to inherit land, access to credit, and other policies that are favorable to the small producer and to environmentally-friendly production practices. This is an impressive global political movement that intersects the rising movements of smallholders generally – led by organizations such as La Via Campesina.

But for all the impressive self-organization of the peasant farmers, and the justice they seek, the entire rural system they represent is under threat as never before.

Agribusiness companies and investors are buying up large blocks of land, gambling that food prices will soon rise and land prices will skyrocket. Financiers everywhere are piling into this new investment game and they are assembling vast investment pools to do it. This process, known as “land grabbing,” has been well-documented by the organization “GRAIN.” Sometimes, governments bring in the military or armed police forces and simply expel the peasants from the land, claiming they have no clear “title.” In other cases, the pressure is more subtle, but the results are the same. The world is heading into a brave new world of techno-farming.

These land-grab farms are nothing to celebrate. The multi-billion dollar profits for Wall Street investors come with enormous social, environmental and nutritional cost. Hundreds of millions of people will be expelled from the land and forced to migrate into urban slums. Rainforests will be cut down. Unsustainable agricultural practices will proliferate.

To make it all seem fair and reasonable, the World Bank is now issuing a set of new rules that supposedly take care of the problems. But these rules do little but provide an imprimatur of “responsible” investment. It is clear that the rules were written by and for Wall Street and that they will do virtually nothing to stem the tide of peasant displacement and agro-industrialization. Already, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, land equivalent to the size of France has been seized and this is only the beginning.

Those interested in seeing the land grabbers in their native habitat can sign up for a conference on May 6-7, at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York. Entitled “Global AgInvesting 2010,” the conference will promote this “emerging asset class for private and institutional investors.” “Endowments and foundations” are especially encouraged to attend, says the advertisement on the internet.

So, on Earth Day plus one, we need to ask: what can stop this speculative juggernaut? And how can we support the rural farm communities – half of our humankind - who are fighting for sustainable food production. We all have a stake in the outcome.

Peak Oil is Official!

The US Department of Energy has finally admitted that global petroleum production will soon be heading into permanent decline. Glen Sweetnam, a high official of the Energy Information Administration, revealed this new assessment in a little-noted statement on March 30. Until recently, his agency predicted large increases in oil production over the coming 2-3 decades.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes widely-used data on global oil production, consumption and prices. Though Sweetnam rejected the validity of “peak-oil” theory, his statement was widely seen as an admission that the theory has predicted trends far more accurately than his agency has done. He acknowledged that world production has reached a “plateau” and would not rise significantly higher.

Until recently, the EIA predicted that production would rise from the current level of about 85 million barrels per day to 120 million by 2030. After five years of unchanged global production, as recorded by the EIA’s own data, those predictions are now considered laughable. People inside the agency have confessed that production estimates were not based on any study of new oil discoveries, but simply by projecting increases in demand and assuming supply would keep pace.

Not only did Washington insist on wildly optimistic scenarios, but it put pressure on the International Energy Agency to publish growth-oriented numbers. The IEA also “predicted” that world production would rise as high as 120 million barrels per day. The Guardian newspaper discovered that IEA officials had fabricated the numbers because they were afraid to “anger the Americans.” US and IEA numbers were considered definitive and used by most governments for energy-related policy making.

So the secret is now out. The world’s energy policy was based on a lie.

Demand for oil is now rising rapidly, as economies grow again, but oil production is stuck in a short-lived plateau-peak, to be followed soon by a rapid decline. In fact, private EIA data show that world production may actually fall rapidly, to just about 40 million barrels per day by 2030 - one third the earlier estimate - while world demand at present rates of increase would have risen to 110 million bpd. The difference, as shown in a private EIA’s graph, will depend on “unidentified projects” – that is, wishful thinking. A gap of 70 million bpd will have opened. With demand nearly three times supply, oil will be scarcer than caviar, driving prices to extremely high levels (thousands of dollars per gallon perhaps).

So what is being done by Washington and other governments to address this unprecedented crisis? Time is short and the implications vast. The leaders have not made any announcement or devised emergency measures. President Obama, Prime Minister Brown and the rest have avoided the issue almost entirely. Meantime, growth is up, auto sales are rising, and we are headed for the energy abyss.

Today, Earth Day, it is time to begin thinking very differently. Private EIA graphs show production declines beginning as soon as 2011. The end of the oil era is very, very near.

Aide Memoire

 

We all forget things. However, there is a huge difference between forgetting to water the plants for a few days, to forgetting to address pressing international political and humanitarian issues for months, sometimes years at a time. When this happens, which is dangerously often at the UN Security Council, it looks less like forgetfulness and more like systematic and deliberate neglect.

Every month, the Security Council Report (SCR) publishes a table entitled "Aide-Memoire". It contains a collection of important matters pending for Security Council discussion. As the graph below demonstrates, these reminders do little to aid the memory of the Security Council because often twelve months or more go by with the same issue in the SCR table!

The graph above simplifies the topic to either a country name or specific field. Below I will look closer at some of the frequently neglected issues, addressing the consequences of and the possible reasons for the neglect. If more detail is required on topics not covered here, you can look at the Security Council Report website.

Gaza

The aide-memoire on Gaza refers to the UN Security Council failure to address the attacks on UN property and personnel during Operation Cast Lead (27th December 2008 - 17th January 2009), as laid out in the Goldstone Report. Despite express calls from Libya last year, the Security Council declined to schedule a meeting on the Goldstone Report; rather, it left the topic to the ineffectual - and close to pointless - open debates on the Middle East, which occur monthly. Not surprisingly no action was taken in these meetings.

It is clear that this is not an act of forgetfulness by the Security Council; rather, a deliberate obstruction by the United States. The spokesperson for the US State Department, Ian Kelly, even stated: "it was in the interest of all concerned, of all who share this common goal of re-launching these [peace] negotiations, to delay discussion of this [the Goldstone] report." He then went on to state that the Security Council is not the place to discuss it but the UNHRC. Interestingly, when the topic came up at the UNHRC last month, the US voted against all resolutions adopted by the Council.

As Donatella Rovera from Amnesty International stated: "The UN Security Council and other UN bodies must now take the steps necessary to ensure that the victims receive the justice and reparation that is their due and that perpetrators don't get away with murder." Alas, political bullying by Washington and the power of veto will keep this vital topic away from the Security Council agenda for the foreseeable future.

Military Staff Committee

The Military Staff Committee (MSC) is a subsidiary body of the United Nations Security Council. The Committee's role, as defined by the United Nations Charter, is to plan UN military operations and assist in the regulation of armaments. However, the MSC has done and continues to do nothing. Reasons of inaction include the Cold War stalemate and current Security Council politics; however, as Dr. Eric Grove states, really it is nothing but "a sterile monument to the faded hopes of the founders of the UN".

In 2005, the World Summit Heads of Government agreed to reevaluate the role of the MSC. However, this issue - five years down the line - is still being ignored. So what are the consequences of this and why the inaction? Consequences include a completely unnecessary expenditure on five high-ranking, and no doubt expensive, military officers. Furthermore, there is no go-to body for general, cross-cutting peacekeeping issues. Also, a reformed MSC could provide the Security Council with valuable advice and assistance, an important resource for Council members who do not have large and well-funded delegations. Finally, without reform, the MSC consists only of the Permanent Five (US, UK, France, Russia and China) which does not represent current global politics or pay credit/involve those countries that contribute the majority of UN peacekeeping troops.

Why has the MSC remained unchanged for nearly sixty years? I imagine it stems from the P5's preference to have a moribund Committee, rather than a reformed one which could devolve decision making power to other more deserving and involved countries. 

  

Lebanon 

Lebanon has two issues pending for Security Council discussion; both on the agenda for a number of years. Both aide-memoires refer to the integrity of Lebanese borders: one concerns Security Council failure to discuss the recent reports of ‘Lebanon Independent Border Assessment Team', and the other refers to UN-mandated assistance to help Lebanon regain the land illegally occupied by Israel, as laid out in Resolution 1701.

It is no coincidence that every time a Security Council issues mention or imply Israel, it falls into the aide-memoire pile. As with Gaza, the Security Council has not forgotten about Lebanese national integrity; rather, the Council has been blocked from addressing the issue by the US and its allies. 

The problems of ‘aide-memoire' go to the heart of UN inefficiency. Issues of monumental importance can be sidelined, month after month, if the issue is not to the liking of a veto-wielding Security Council member.

Baltasar Garzon: Pillar of justice or Abuser of power

Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish “super-judge” famed for his indictments against Pinochet and Osama bin Laden, will stand trial for “knowingly overreaching criminal jurisdiction.”  The charges, issued by Spanish right wing political parties and jurists, refer to Garzon’s investigations into the crimes against humanity committed under General Franco.

If Garzon is prosecuted, the case could establish two dangerous precedents.  Firstly, the concept of universal jurisdiction – globally popularized by Garzon – will be further eroded.  Secondly, and more importantly, his prosecution would undermine the fundamental legal doctrine that the judiciary cannot be criminally liable for controversial investigations.

Garzon used the legal tool of universal jurisdiction to investigate the 114,000 disappearances that happened under General Franco’s regime from 1939 to 1975.  Universal jurisdiction, previously used by Garzon to probe foreign countries over crimes against humanity, was in this instance used to override the 1977 Amnesty Law enacted by Spain.  The Amnesty Law, passed two years after Franco’s death, was enacted to foster peace and democracy in the post-Franco era.  Consequently, Spain did not have a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ like post-apartheid South Africa or an international criminal court like Cambodia; rather, more than a hundred thousand families were left to deal with unanswered questions about disappeared family and friends.  

These unanswered questions formed the grounds for Garzon’s investigations.  He argued that universal jurisdiction could override the Amnesty Law because the investigations focused on crimes against humanity.  Furthermore, because thousands of the disappearances are yet to be resolved, they are continuing legal issues and therefore fall outside the purview of the Amnesty Law.  It is also important to note that Garzon is only investigating the actions of thirty-four dead Franco officials, which suggests he seeks to find peace of mind for the victims’ families, not make criminal prosecutions.

The other issue raised by Garzon’s indictment, criminal liability for judges who initiate controversial investigations, is more worrying. If successful, the case would act as a dangerous precedent because it could legitimize political groups meddling with judicial independence and blocking investigations not to their liking.

International legal agreements that prevent criminal responsibility for pursuing controversial investigations include: Article 14 of the ‘Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, Articles 4, 7 and 18 on the ‘UN Basic Principles of Independence of Judiciary’ and ‘International Standards on the Independence of the Judiciary’.  Imagine if these foundational texts were to be overruled and Garzon were to be prosecuted.  History demonstrates the fundamental role of the judiciary in monitoring and overturning unjust government policies: abolition of slavery, acceptance of homosexuality and racial diversity, acceptance of abortion, to name but a few.

Any investigation must be able to come before a court.  This is essential to the rule of law.  If not, governments could build statutory perimeters around themselves protecting their most abhorrent actions and darkest secrets – a trend that is already increasing!  If Garzon is prosecuted, this trend may worsen.

Dangerously Secure Security Council

Last week, the United Nations Security Council voted to increase the levels of secrecy it operates under.  Some diplomats and press corporations argue that this is the greatest setback to UN transparency for decades.

The main issue is the significant reduction of press access to Security Council members. This trend stems from the moving of the Council chamber to the basement of the UN and changing security regulations.  The new Council location impedes press access to diplomats as they leave deliberations; something that was available at the previous location.  Also, council members can now leave the Security Council chamber and depart the UN building without passing the press.  French Ambassador, Gerard Araud, seemed particularly happy about this.  

In addition to press restrictions, measures voted in by the Council’s fifteen members include: banning the Secretary General’s note-taker from attending meetings, reducing the number of experts allowed in Security Council consultations and barring non-council diplomats from the inner-sanctums of decision making.

The decision to drastically reduce UNSC transparency grows from certain council members’ fears that information, from closed-door meetings, is being leaked to the press.  However, as the ‘Committee to Protect Journalists’ argues, how can the UN push a free-press agenda in its programs across the world whilst eroding it at headquarters.  Media coverage provides a vital role in monitoring and informing the work of the Council.

The President of the Security Council for April, Yukio Akasu of Japan, asserts that media access is not being eroded and he will work to have previous privileges reinstated.  However, UN Press members seem less than impressed.  The President of the UN press club, Giampaolo Pioli, stated that the restrictions were “unjustifiable” and represented “an unacceptable curtailing of the ability of reporters.”

** More on this story can be found here

Crime of Aggression: Pragmatic Reasons or a Fear of Scrutiny?

In May, states party to the International Criminal Court (and other observers) will gather in Uganda to discuss the 1998 Rome Statute; one topic on the agenda is the definition of a crime of aggression. The crime of aggression was included in the Rome Statute, but a lack of consensus over definition prevented the ICC having jurisdiction over the crime thus far.

The United States, following World War Two, famously included the inclusion of a crime of aggression in the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials. Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor for the US, stated: "to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime..." However, in a situation that is all too familiar, the shoe does not fit so well when it is on the other foot.

Articles in the New York Times and Washington Post argue that jurisdiction over crimes of aggression would be terrible for pragmatic and political reasons. However, it is evident - both explicitly and implicitly - that fear of judicial scrutiny for US aggression lies at the heart of their arguments.

Both articles assert that jurisdiction over the crime of aggression would be too difficult because one could never successfully enumerate the grounds on which the crime occurs. And indeed, their arguments carry significant truths. There will be considerable difficulties in establishing how to assign individual responsibility for group actions. It will be immensely complex to determine the definition of aggression, and when an act of aggression becomes a crime of aggression. And formulating the relationship between the Security Council and ICC's jurisdiction over crimes of aggression will be far from easy.

However, these are obstacles to be overcome not dismissed. Legal systems across the world have always been plagued by difficulties of definition, but no one gave up prosecuting murder because of the difficulty in defining intent.

ICC signatories are doing wonderful work to build consensus on the parameters of the crime of aggression. One particular definition of the crime of aggression, I believe, is particularly praiseworthy:

"For the purposes of this Statute, the crime of aggression is committed by a person who is in a position of exercising control or capable of directing political/military actions in his State, against another State, or depriving other peoples of their rights to self-determination, freedom and independence, in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations, by resorting to armed force to threaten or to violate the sovereignty, territorial integrity of political independence of that State or the inalienable rights of those people."

How could such a statement be disagreed with? Michael Glennon, the writer of the NYT piece and Professor of International Law at Tufts, argues that jurisdiction over a crime of aggression: "will force hundreds of political and military leaders who act in good faith to guess when and where they will be arrested in their international travels. It will strain relations among allies and exacerbate tensions among adversaries. It will bollix an international equilibrium that already is precarious enough."

Glennon appears unaware that "international equilibrium" is bollixed because of unchecked, unilateral acts of aggression, not the other way round. Universal judicial scrutiny is fundamental if unjust, illegal and destructive acts of aggression, like the attack on Iraq, are to be prevented in the future.

At the heart of US opposition to the ICC and jurisdiction over crimes of aggression is Glennon's worry of "good faith" practitioners being prosecuted. As Stephen Rademaker argues in the WP article: "Washington has always been the sole judge of whether a particular use of force was justified under international law." If the ICC were to take over this role, the US ability to act aggressively would be considerably curtailed. If the structures to investigate crimes of aggression had existed in 2003, would Cheney, Bush and Blair have acted so rashly in Iraq?

Contrary to Rademaker and Glennon, I believe jurisdiction over crimes of aggression will not inundate the ICC with prosecutions; that is not the predominant aim. Rather, jurisdiction over crimes of aggression will reinforce Benjamin Ferencz's wise words that "war-making is no longer a national right" and that no country can act with impunity.

True Colors

Events in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) last week reinforced the findings of a previous blog, entitled “US-Israel: Really Breaking Friends”.

Last week, the UNHRC issued five condemnatory resolutions against Israel, and the US voted against all of them. The elaborate show of Obama standing Netanyahu up for dinner and numerous government officials denouncing Israel’s plans to build more settlements apparently meant nothing in reality. Rather, the US performance in the UNHCR demonstrates what this country is willing to do in order to pursue geo-political interests and protect domestic politics.

The US voted against all resolutions, effectively endorsing and encouraging the Israeli sabotage of the peace-process, the Israeli erosion of Palestinian human rights and dignity, the Israeli targeting of civilians, the illegal-Israeli detention of Palestinian women and children, the Israeli withdrawal of food, water, clothing, shelter from the civilians of Gaza, and the Israeli rejection of international law. Perhaps most interestingly, the US voted against Israel “immediately stopping its illegal decision to demolish a large number of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem.”