Thursday, 4 December 2008

Live and Direct Case: The Lybian Humanitarian Aid Vessel to Gaza & Security Coucil Crap

Lybia say: " we asked the Council to convene following Monday’s interception by the Israeli Navy of the Libyan ship Al-Marwa, which was loaded with humanitarian supplies for the benefit of the Gaza population, under almost complete siege by the Israeli authorities. The ship was explicitly threatened with destruction in case it failed to follow orders by Israeli authorities, which prevented even the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from delivering supplies to Gaza. The ship should be allowed to enter Gaza and deliver its cargo. Libya would accept inspection of the ship by any humanitarian organization or the United Nations to verify that it had nothing but food, medicine and its crew on board. " ( by the way if Lybia was not a permanent member of the council, they would not have convened, way to go Lybia)

Israel say: "if Libya was genuinely interested in supporting peace and security in the Middle East, it would have condemned Hamas’ brutal coup against the moderate Palestinian Authority and subsequent control of Gaza, as well as the constant barrage of rockets and mortars on Israeli towns by terrorists. Like any other State, Israel had the right -– even the duty -– to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks. No United Nations Member State would allow a shipment originating from a hostile State to reach a territory that served as a launching pad for terrorist attacks against its citizens. it said that it was a “sad day” for the Security Council, which had been outrageously compelled to promote the particular agenda of one of its member States. That member State had intentionally chosen to abuse the Council’s procedures to distract it from addressing the dire problems facing the international community. Serving on the Council bore a serious and solemn responsibility, and the United Nations Charter had established clear demands of the Council’s non-permanent members to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. But Libya bore no such responsibility. When Israeli students were murdered last March by a Palestinian terrorist, Libya had opposed the unanimous will of the Council’s members to condemn the attack. In fact, since its election to the Council, Libya had prevented any initiative on Middle East issues that contradicted its narrow political agenda, even refusing to participate in briefings by the Israeli Mission. Those actions clearly demonstrated that Libya did not understand its role in the Council, its obligations and its responsibilities." ( thats no excuse and you will lose badly when justice prevails)

UK say : " Israel’s actions constituted piracy under the law of the sea and insisted on the need to follow proper humanitarian channels for the delivery of aid "

US Say: " the Council was confronted by a “most unusual” situation, having been asked by one of its members to meet on an issue of that country’s own making. The way Libya had proceeded was “dangerous and irresponsible”. If that country’s objective had been to provide humanitarian assistance, a number of ways existed that did not amount to provocation. The manner that Libya had chosen for delivering such assistance seemed almost designed to guarantee that it did not get aid through " (Shame on you)

South Africa Say : " the whole situation could be described as a humanitarian disaster, where innocent civilians were denied much-needed assistance. With little progress achieved on the ground following the agreements reached in Annapolis 12 months ago, it was time for the parties, the international community and the Council to act. The international community could not sit back and allow the situation to deteriorate, ending all hopes for a negotiated solution. Israel’s security should not be used as a justification for denying access of humanitarian assistance. He called on Israel to allow the delivery of much-needed support to Palestine through all crossings, including the port of Gaza. He hoped that the Council would find it possible to pronounce itself on the humanitarian situation in Palestine. It could not continue to avoid confronting such an obvious situation. " ( they have been there, so they know what exactly is going on in Gaza )

China Say: " no issue could justify collective punishment. Israel was under an obligation to ensure that the normal humanitarian needs of the population of Gaza were met, and he urged it to lift a siege and accord humanitarian assistance to the population. "



if you were a state member in the council how would you respond to the Israeli statement?

No comments: