‘Existential hour' for Palestine at 30-country conference in Colombia
The two-day event starts on Tuesday in the Colombian capital Bogota, and will be attended by representatives from countries including China, Spain and Qatar.
Albanese will announce that the conference comes at 'an existential hour,' The Guardian reported on Tuesday.
Participating countries will use the event to lay the groundwork for implementing a UN General Assembly motion calling on member states to pressure Israel into ending its illegal occupation of Palestine.
The motion included a deadline of September for putting into action the International Court of Justice's 2024 opinion that found Israel's occupation of Palestine to be unlawful.
The court's advisory opinion last July called on Israel to end its occupation 'as rapidly as possible.'
UN member states also have an obligation 'not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel's illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory,' it found.
Conference host Gustavo Petro, Colombia's president, said the meeting will demonstrate a global will to move from condemnation to collective action against Israel.
In an article for The Guardian last week, he said: 'We can either stand firm in defense of the legal principles that seek to prevent war and conflict, or watch helplessly as the international system collapses under the weight of unchecked power politics.'
The Hague Group behind the conference was initially established by Colombia and South Africa, but now includes Spain, Qatar, Indonesia, Algeria and Brazil.
The group met in January at a nine-country conference and agreed to implement the ICJ's provisional measures.
Albanese will tell the Bogota meeting: 'For too long, international law has been treated as optional — applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful. This double standard has eroded the very foundations of the legal order. That era must end.
'The world will remember what we, states and individuals, did in this moment — whether we recoiled in fear or rose in defense of human dignity.
'Here in Bogota, a growing number of states have the opportunity to break the silence and revert to a path of legality by finally saying: enough. Enough impunity. Enough empty rhetoric. Enough exceptionalism. Enough complicity.
'The time has come to act in pursuit of justice and peace — grounded in rights and freedoms for all, and not mere privileges for some, at the expense of the annihilation of others.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
35 minutes ago
- Arab News
UN rights chief warns world inaction on Gaza could amount to complicity in war crimes
NEW YORK CITY: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk on Sunday issued a stark appeal ahead of the High-Level Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine, urging governments to exert maximum pressure on Israel to end what he described as a 'carnage' in Gaza and warning that inaction could amount to complicity in international crimes. In a video statement released from Geneva, Türk called for 'immediate steps by Israel to end its unlawful continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory,' and urged all parties to work towards tangible progress on implementing a two-State solution. The event, co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France and officially titled the High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, is being described as both urgent and historic. UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher on Sunday warned that humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire, with widespread hunger, children wasting away, and people risking their lives just to access food. While Israel's recent move to ease restrictions and allow more aid through is a step forward, Fletcher said it is not nearly enough. Vast quantities of aid, safe access routes, consistent fuel supplies, and protection for civilians are urgently needed to prevent further catastrophe. A sustained, immediate humanitarian response and a permanent ceasefire are critical. Turk said: 'This Conference must deliver concrete action,' he said, appealing to participating governments to 'put all possible pressure on the Israeli government to end the carnage in Gaza — permanently.' Turk cautioned that 'countries that fail to use their leverage may be complicit in international crimes.' Describing the situation in Gaza and the West Bank as an 'unspeakable tragedy,' Türk said that daily violence and destruction were fueling the 'dehumanization of Palestinians.' He condemned Israeli plans that he said amounted to consolidating the annexation of the West Bank and forcing Palestinians out of Gaza. 'Every day, we see actions and hear about plans (to) crowd extremely exhausted and hungry people into ever-smaller areas of the territory, after repeated displacement orders by the Israeli military,' he said. 'These steps put the two-state solution even further out of reach.' 'Children are starving and dying in front of our eyes,' Turk said, calling Gaza 'a dystopian landscape of deadly attacks and total destruction.' He strongly criticized what he described as the failure of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, supported by the United States and Israel, saying its chaotic, militarized distribution centers 'are failing utterly to deliver humanitarian aid at the scope and scale needed.' According to figures from Gaza's Health Ministry, Turk said, over 200,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured since October 7, about ten percent of the territory's population. He also noted that more than 1,000 people have died since May while trying to access food, and that over 300 humanitarian workers have been killed by Israel. 'All countries have an obligation to take concrete steps to ensure that Israel, the occupying power in Gaza, complies with its obligations to ensure that sufficient food and lifesaving necessities are provided to the population,' he said. Turning to the occupied West Bank, Türk accused Israeli security forces and settlers of 'continuing to kill Palestinians, demolish houses, cut off water supplies, and consolidate systems of oppression and discrimination.' While condemning the October 7 attacks by Hamas and other Palestinian groups and recognizing the trauma inflicted on Israel, Turk reiterated his long-standing condemnation of the scale of Israel's military response in Gaza. He said he has warned repeatedly of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the need to prevent genocide, echoing concerns raised by the International Court of Justice. 'The people of the world will judge this Conference on what it delivers,' he warned. Turk renewed calls for an 'immediate, permanent ceasefire,' the 'unconditional release of all hostages and all others arbitrarily detained,' and for 'massive' humanitarian aid to be delivered to Palestinians 'wherever they are.' He concluded by expressing the UN human rights office's readiness to support Palestinian state-building efforts grounded in human rights and the rule of law, and emphasized the future importance of victim support and accountability.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
The UN, the Palestinians, Israel and a stalled two-state solution
UNITED NATIONS: Ever since the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in 1947, the United Nations has been inextricably linked to the fate of Palestinians, with the organization meeting this week hoping to revive the two-state solution. Here is a timeline on the issue: In November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 dividing Palestine — which was then under British mandate — into Jewish and Arab states, with a special international zone for Jerusalem. Zionist leaders accepted the resolution, but it was opposed by Arab states and the Palestinians. Israel declared independence in May 1948, triggering the Arab-Israeli war which was won convincingly by Israel the following year. Around 760,000 Palestinians fled their homes or were expelled — an event known as the 'Nakba,' Arabic for 'catastrophe,' which the United Nations only officially commemorated for the first time in May 2023. In the aftermath of the Six-Day War of 1967, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the conflict, including the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. But linguistic ambiguities between the English and French versions of the resolutions complicated matters, making the scope of the required withdrawal unclear. In November 1974, Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), gave his first speech to the UN General Assembly in New York, saying he carried both 'an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun.' Days later, the UN General Assembly recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination and independence. It granted UN observer status to the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people. One of the strongest peace initiatives did not come from the United Nations. In 1993, Israel and the PLO — which in 1988 unilaterally declared an independent State of Palestine — wrapped up months of secret negotiations in Norway's capital Oslo. The two sides signed a 'declaration of principles' on Palestinian autonomy and, in 1994, Arafat returned to the Palestinian territories after a long exile and formed the Palestinian Authority, the governing body for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. UN Security Council decisions on how to treat the Palestinians have always depended on the position of the veto-wielding United States. Since 1972, Washington has used its veto more than 30 times to protect its close ally Israel. But sometimes, it allows key resolutions to advance. In March 2002, the Security Council — at Washington's initiative — adopted Resolution 1397, the first to mention a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel, with secure and recognized borders. In December 2016, for the first time since 1979, the Council called on Israel to stop building settlements in the Palestinian territories — a measure that went through thanks to a US abstention, just before the end of Barack Obama's White House term. And in March 2024, another US abstention — under pressure from the international community — allowed the Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire amid Israel's offensive on Hamas in Gaza, sparked by the militants' October 7 attack. That measure came after the United States blocked three similar drafts. In 2011, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas initiated the process of requesting membership of the State of Palestine to the UN, which required a positive recommendation from the Security Council, followed by a favorable vote from the General Assembly. In the face of opposition from the United States, the process was halted even before a vote in the Council. The following year, the General Assembly granted the Palestinians a lower status as a 'non-member observer State.' In April 2024, the Palestinians renewed their request to become a full-fledged member state, but the United States vetoed it. If the Palestinian request had cleared the Security Council hurdle, it would have had every chance of being approved by the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly. According to an AFP database, at least 142 of the 193 UN member states unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. In the absence of full membership, the Assembly granted the Palestinians new rights in 2024, seating them in alphabetical order of states, and allowing to submit resolution proposals themselves for the first time.
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
Starmer has chance to right a historical wrong
Feverish debate over recent months has centered on whether the UK and France will recognize the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that recognition was 'not a taboo.' France and Saudi Arabia were due to hold a conference on the two-state solution in New York in June, but it was delayed by Israel's aggression against Iran. Instead, it is being held this week. But the UK's position has been far from clear? Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer agree to join in or will he delay? No country in the world has more of a history of grappling with the issue of Palestine than Britain. It was, after all, the author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which it pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It did not mention a second state in that declaration. London had to grapple with this as the mandatory power all the way up to 1947, when it handed the issue over to the newly formed UN to resolve. In November of that year, the UN General Assembly voted for partition. The UK abstained on that resolution. However, its exit from Palestine was one of the low points of its Middle Eastern colonial era. It made little or no attempt to thwart the war that started even before its troops had left. Palestinians argue that, given all this, Britain has a particular historic responsibility toward Palestine. It should, many argue, be in the vanguard of pushing for the creation of that second state. It was not until the Venice Declaration of 1980 that European powers including the UK committed to acknowledging the Palestinian right to self-government. Even after that, it was many years before Britain had any formal relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Successive governments acted merely as backing vocalists to the US position on most aspects of the Palestinian question. With the Oslo Accords of 1993, the expectation that a peace process would lead to a Palestinian state grew. Britain and other donor states invested heavily in this option and aid to the fledgling Palestinian Authority grew as a result. It was all under the rubric that this would lead to a two-state solution, a secure Israel side by side with a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership shifted its strategy after the Second Intifada to pushing for recognition. The UNGA approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 and the state of Palestine also started applying for membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. In 2014, the UK government's position was outlined by then-Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said that London 'reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.' On Oct. 13, 2014, a debate took place in the House of Commons with a votable motion: 'That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.' The result of the vote was 274 to 12, a majority of 262 in favor of recognition. This was not binding on the government of the time but was a clear signal of parliamentary opinion. The low number of opponents to the motion indicated that few politicians were willing to oppose it in public. Significantly, this motion was backed by the leader of the Labour Party at the time, Ed Miliband. He said that recognition was 'right, just, fair and in line with the values' of his party. This tied Labour to supporting recognition. Contrary to widespread belief, it was not his pro-Palestinian successor, Jeremy Corbyn, who first made this move. Keir Starmer inherited this stance when he became Labour leader after the election defeat in 2019. But he made a significant change in Labour's position prior to the 2024 election. The manifesto committed the party to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process. It stated: 'We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.' The lack of clarity was deliberate. The decision on timing would be in the hands of the prime minister. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. Chris Doyle Debate endured as to whether these positions meant that Israel had veto power. Linking recognition to the state of a peace process, when the official Israel government policy was not to enter into negotiations, meant this was, in effect, exactly the case. Everything changed after Oct. 7, 2023. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. This has included a drive to recognize Palestine. In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized Palestine. Israel withdrew its ambassadors from those states. Larger European states such as the UK rejected the opportunity to join this move. This brings us to the present. Faced with Macron's announcement that France will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the focus returns to Starmer. He is facing considerable pressure to make the move immediately. Cabinet ministers are reported to have lobbied Starmer on recognition. They include Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is also likely to have been backing this move. Now, 221 members of Parliament from nine parties have written to Starmer expressing their support for such a move. More than 130 of these are his own Labour MPs. Others are backing this letter even now. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his support, as did the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. The Financial Times quoted a senior Labour official as stating: 'The block on this is Keir himself as well as his senior advisers. They want to stay close to the US.' Public opinion is more supportive of recognition than opposed. Recent polls indicate a large number of 'don't knows' but, in a June survey, 64 percent of Labour voters said they believe that the UK should recognize Palestine. Only 2 percent of these voters opposed any recognition. This highlights that Starmer would have the backing of the base of his political party if he were to go ahead. What is holding Starmer back? The obvious answer is the US. Starmer is desperately keen to stay on constructive terms with American President Donald Trump. He will pick his battles with him — and it is unlikely one will be over the recognition of Palestine. There is also the issue of the hangover of the Corbyn era, when the Labour Party was swamped by accusations of antisemitism and lost considerable support within the British Jewish community. Starmer and his circle do not wish to relive that experience. Some argue that it is also Starmer's strongly held personal belief. Two arguments seem to hold sway in 10 Downing Street. Firstly, that recognition would not bring peace any closer. The second is the Israeli line that this rewards Hamas and its atrocities. The counterargument is that, far from rewarding Hamas, it is the Palestinian national movement that would be boosted. Is Starmer's position reversible? He has made U-turns on significant domestic policy, so it is possible. One argument is that if Starmer does not do this jointly with France, then in what circumstances would he do it? France would offer diplomatic cover and encourage other states to do the same. On the other hand, Starmer is in many ways already treating Palestine as a state in all but name. Back in May, he met with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in Downing Street with both flags on display as if Mustafa was head of a state government. Would UK recognition even matter? Israel seems to think so, as does the US. This explains their forthright condemnation of any state that recognizes Palestine. Supporters of the move believe that this matters too. It would mean official recognition — decades too late perhaps — that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also have legal benefits for Palestinians. Any UK recognition would be largely symbolic. However, if the UK were to recognize Palestine, it would be recognizing a state under occupation. That matters because it demonstrates that this 58-year-old Israeli occupation has to end — and the failure to do so must have consequences.
