VZCZCXRO4617
RR RUEHAT RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHGV #0894/01 2931405
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201405Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9723
RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 4642
RHEHNSC/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GENEVA 000894 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC
 
SUBJECT:  GAZA, GOLDSTONE RESOLUTION PASSES AT HRC SPECIAL SESSION 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) The Human Rights Council Special Session passed a 
resolution endorsing the recommendations contained in the Goldstone 
Fact Finding Mission's report on the conflict in Gaza.  By a margin 
of 25 in favor, 11 abstentions, 6 no votes, and 5 not voting, the 
Council adopted the resolution that singles out Israel for 
criticism, recommends the General Assembly consider the report, and 
requests the UN Secretary General to report to the HRC's 13th 
regular session on the implementation of the report's 
recommendations.  Five European countries (Italy, Netherlands, 
Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine) joined the United States in voting 
no, while the rest of the European members and a handful of African 
and GRULAC states abstained.  This relatively positive voting result 
contrasts with recent past special sessions, on which Canada (when 
it was a member) was often the sole "no " vote.  U.S. lobbying in 
Geneva and capitals played a critical role in building opposition to 
this unbalanced resolution.  End Summary. 
 
Key Outcomes 
------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The Human Rights Council Special Session resolution 
concerning the Goldstone Fact Finding Mission's report passed with 
less robust majority than recent Israel resolutions, with 25 votes 
in favor out of the 47 members of the Council.  Six voted against, 
including the U.S., Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and 
Ukraine.  The 11 abstentions came from Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, 
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of 
Korea, Slovenia, and Uruguay.  The United Kingdom and France did not 
vote, despite being present in the room. 
 
¶3. (U) The resolution recommends that UN General Assembly act on the 
report next. It is unclear when and how the UNGA will act, and what 
weight it will give to the HRC's and the report 's specific 
recommendations if it does.  It also condemns Israeli actions in 
East Jerusalem, including excavations near the Al-Aqsa mosque; 
welcomes the Goldstone report and its recommendations; condemns 
Israel's decision not to cooperate with the fact-finding mission; 
and endorses the report and recommendations made by the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights in her recent report on the Gaza 
conflict.  The resolution also calls for follow-up at the 13th 
regular session of the Human Rights Council in March 2010, and 
requests the UN Secretary General to report to the next HRC session 
on the implementation of the Goldstone report.  The resolution does 
not address Hamas rocket attacks into Israel, despite Justice 
Goldstone's stated disappointment about the failure of the 
resolution to address rocket attacks by Palestinian groups. 
 
Not a Bad Voting Outcome Compared with the Recent Past 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Recent resolutions on the Occupied Palestinian Territories 
have passed by higher margins.  For example, the resolution that 
called for the creation of the Fact Finding Mission passed by a vote 
of 33 in favor, 1 against (Canada) and 13 abstentions.  Moreover, 
Canada was the lone "no " vote on five of the last seven 
Israel-related voted resolutions in regular sessions and the only 
"no " vote on the last two Israel-related special session 
resolutions.  The results of this most recent special session 
indicate, among other things, U.S. success in lobbying in Geneva and 
capitals to secure votes against the resolution and abstentions. 
 
National Positions 
------------------ 
 
¶5.  (U) During general debate, many countries, across different 
regions, expressed regret that the Special Session was called, mere 
weeks after the matter was deferred during the 12th regular session, 
depriving the Council of time to digest the 575 page report and seek 
a consensus resolution.  Still, member states from the Arab Group to 
the EU acknowledged the urgent need to address impunity and promote 
accountability, and urged both Israel and authorities in Gaza to 
conduct investigations.  Member states from the Arab Group and the 
OIC, and NGOs from those regions, expressed doubt that Israel would 
conduct serious investigations that would bring justice to the 
victims of the Gaza conflict.  Many, including several European 
states, expressed regret that Israel had chosen not to cooperate 
with Goldstone's mission.  Other general themes included 
condemnation of the Gaza blockade, home demolitions and expanding 
settlements, and excavations near the Al-Aqsa mosque. 
 
¶6.  (U) The main sponsors of the resolution justified the Special 
Session, saying that although the deferral was intended to give time 
to consult within the Council, Israel responded with even more human 
rights violations in East Jerusalem.  The deferral, which was made 
 
GENEVA 00000894  002 OF 002 
 
 
in good faith, was "perceived as a sign of weakness."  In his 
statement to the Council, Israeli Ambassador Ronny Yaar stated that 
the session "had nothing to do with human rights."  He questioned 
the credibility of a Council which would politicize the issue in 
this way.  Egypt and its friendly delegations indicated that it was 
not the Special Session, but rather the Council's unwillingness to 
hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza which represented 
politicization, saying: "The credibility of the Council is being 
tested.  Will it uphold the rights of victims or let political 
considerations get in the way? " 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The main sponsors did not incorporate any significant 
changes from other members.  Russia expressed disappointment at the 
lack of flexibility and consultation.  Brazil and Chile, despite 
failing to achieve any of their requested changes, voted yes with an 
explanation of position iterating their interpretation of what the 
resolution intended.  The sponsors' hard line on language, along 
with heavy lobbying from the USG, helped influence dynamics within 
the EU, allowing the EU "nays " to remain firm, preventing a common 
EU abstention.  The most polemic comments from the general debate 
section came from Kuwait, earning a protest from Israel.  Australia 
gave an unexpectedly weak statement expressing reticence about the 
special session "at this time." 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The Goldstone report will now be forwarded to the General 
Assembly for consideration and we will face another resolution in 
the March HRC session in Geneva.  As the first official UN 
resolution dealing with the Goldstone report, the recent Special 
Session outcome could set the tone for future discussions of the 
matter.  One argument in favor of a more measured approach to the 
report is that the resolution passed by a less robust majority than 
recent Israel resolutions -- only 25 of the 47 members supported the 
resolution and there were "no's " and abstentions from a 
cross-regional group of states.  Maintaining that broad coalition of 
skeptics could encourage a more realistic review of the report and 
its content.  One of the sticking points for delegations was the 
wholesale endorsement of the recommendations.  That said, we expect 
continued calls for the parties (and certain international bodies) 
to implement the recommendations in the report.  Absent any action, 
we should be prepared to see considerable weakening of the positions 
of those delegations that did not vote in favor of the resolution. 
The next few months will be key to building a cohesive strategy and 
group of supporters in favor of our preferred outcome.  End comment. 
 
 
GRIFFITHS