Adama Dieng (centre), visited Yei River State in South Sudan while he was the United Nations Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide. He now calls for urgent action to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Credit: UN Photo/Isaac Billy

By Alison Kentish
NEW YORK, Aug 18 2021 (IPS)

Despite a June 30 unilateral ceasefire declaration by Ethiopian President Abiy Ahmed, United Nations agencies say a recent escalation in fighting has been ‘disastrous’ for children, amid reports of over 100 children being killed in an attack on displaced families.

It follows continuing reports of human rights abuses and warnings that over 400,000 face famine. Recently, a group of renowned peace leaders wrote to the President, urging him to take immediate action to end the crisis in the northern Tigray region.

The region has been embroiled in conflict since November 2020, when long-standing tensions between the federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) came to a head, with the Prime Minister launching a military operation he described at the time as a ‘law and order operation.’ He had accused the TPLF of targeting government military units and holding illegal elections.

“Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was praised as a great reformer when he assumed office in 2018. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for a peace deal that ended a two-decade war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. But today, he is presiding over a civil war that has escalated out of control, with reports of mass atrocities committed by Ethiopian forces, and no end in sight,” former president of East Timor-Leste and Nobel Peace Laureate José Ramos-Horta wrote in Newsweek.

The group of concerned peace leaders includes Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former Slovenian President Danilo Turk, Former President of Finland Tarja Halonen, former UN and Arab League Special Envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, Former Member of the Nobel Peace Committee, Chair of Religions for Peace Emeritus Bishop of Oslo Dr Gunnar Stålsett and former UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Envoy for Prevention of Genocide Adama Dieng.

They called on the leader to end this war – along with the suffering on the people of the region ‘which has already been too great.”

The following is an interview with Adama Dieng.

Inter Press Service (IPS): What are some of your biggest concerns regarding the situation in Tigray?

Adama Dieng (AD): What is happening in Tigray is a tragedy. It is a reminder that conflict is never a solution to any dispute! Dialogue is the way out of any such situation.
My biggest worry is the well-being and safety of the people of Tigray. Innocent lives have been lost unnecessarily. Women and children, and people with disabilities have been clamped into IDP makeshift camps with little or no access to vital humanitarian support.

Humanitarian access is a challenge that warring parties need to address. The United Nations and other partners should be granted unequivocal access to deliver much-needed humanitarian assistance to the population in need.

But also, the looming, indeed actual famine that is threatening the livelihood of the local population. All reports we get from the region indicate that famine is looming. How do we avert this?

This is a farming/planting season in the region. Yet, people are in camps, unable to go back to their homes ready for planting season. Without addressing the conflict, it is evident that there is a looming catastrophe because people cannot go back to their homes.

(IPS): The UN Secretary-General expressed shock at the murder of 3 humanitarian workers in Tigray, stating that this was ‘an appalling violation of International Humanitarian Law.’ With this development, along with the casualties over the past eight months, is it time for the international community to take a firmer stance?

(AD): As you may know, very well, the Secretary-General and the United Nations family have called for an unconditional ceasefire to allow free and unhindered access to humanitarians. These voices should be heeded by both parties.

Any death is tragic. Leave alone humanitarian workers who sacrifice their comfort and life to work in such dangerous and insecure areas. People who commit such heinous crimes should be held to account and face the full force of the law.

The warring parties should know very clearly that there are consequences for the ongoing and continued violations of international humanitarian law and human rights. I have no doubt that those responsible will be held to account for these violations. Unfortunately, accountability will come when people have suffered and continue to endure suffering. It is critical that the conflict stops.

I understand, some member states and regional organizations continue to put pressure on the government of Ethiopia to stop this war. By ensuring the full withdrawal of foreign forces and ensure safety and security of the people in Tigray.

The priority should be to stop the war and guarantee peace and safety for the people to resume their normal lives. As we speak, The United Nations in Ethiopia has reported a spiraling number of IDPs running to seek sanctuary in other areas of Ethiopia and indeed in Sudan. We need to return to normal to allow people to return to their homes. And people can’t return without a guarantee of peace and security.

(IPS): Many aid agencies have expressed concern over the plight of Eritrean refugees in the Region. What must be done now to do right by the thousands of refugees in urgent need of assistance?

(AD): Of course, I share this concern. However, Eritrean refugees are protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1969 OAU Convention. Ethiopia has an inherent obligation to ensure that these refugees on its territory are afforded protection as required under international law. I believe, Ethiopia as a signatory to these critical documents, understands this obligation and will ensure that Eritrean refugees are afforded requisite protection under national and international law.

(IPS): Do you support calls for independent investigators to probe allegations of human rights abuses?

(AD): Certainly. Ethiopia is a signatory to a wide range of international and regional human rights treaties. It is a headquarter of the African Union and other regional institutions. It has an obligation to ensure that those who commit crimes on its territory are investigated and punished in accordance with these international laws and standards, which are part of Ethiopian laws. I am therefore confident that the Ethiopian government is willing and will be fully supportive of independent investigations for alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that may have been committed on its territory.

(IPS): Does the declaration of a ceasefire bring hope to this situation?

(DG): This ceasefire gives me hope. But again, as you know, declaring the ceasefire and respecting the ceasefire are two different things. My primary concern is whether, both parties will respect the ceasefire. The key aspect is that we need to support all efforts that end this war which, has tragically led to the loss of life, livelihood, and dignity of innocent people in the region. If warring parties feel that they may need external support to action this, I am sure the international community, through wide range of tools and mechanisms, would be happy and ready to support them to ensure that the ceasefire endures!

(IPS): As someone who has helped establish mechanisms like early warning systems to prevent genocide and atrocity crimes, what comes to mind when you assess this situation?

(AD): The situation in the Tigray reminds us that early warning can be successful only if it is linked to early action. If we are serious about prevention, we must be prepared to act earlier, when we see the first signs of concern. One can say that we are failing the populations in Tigray.

The primary responsibility to protect the Tigrean populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, as well as their incitement, lies first and foremost with the State of Ethiopia. Such responsibility to protect was reaffirmed by the United Nations Member States when adopting, in 2005, the World Summit Outcome Document. They committed to assisting each other to fulfill this responsibility and to act collectively when States “manifestly failed” to protect their populations from these crimes. This was the first such international commitment to protect populations from atrocity crimes. It is deplorable that many states use the principle of sovereignty to resist external assistance to their affected populations.

In case leaders are serious about preventing violent conflict, they must be open to seek assistance to protect their populations in the framework of the Summit Outcome Document. Failure or unwillingness to seek such assistance, may imply that the state is either implicitly or explicitly responsible for the violence. That is why I always caution leaders around the world that if they don’t take demonstrable action to prevent atrocities against their own citizens, then under the principle of command responsibility, they could be held accountable.

It is urgent also to remind African leaders that the African Union, under its Constitutive Act, has one of the most developed early warning mechanisms with a requisite legal framework for prevention. The Act under Article 2 obligates AU Member states to intervene in situations to prevent genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This legal framework, if put into practice, goes way ahead of the United Nations to prevent armed conflicts. The serious crimes being committed in Tigray could have been prevented as there were credible assessments of imminent threats to populations.

It would mean that our governments, regional and international organizations build resilient and cohesive societies. And when we see signs of fragility, we should take early preventative actions. We should be open to mediation, dialogue, and technical assistance in areas that could trigger conflict, for example, in electoral processes or constitution-making.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

As many as 700 people were sentenced to death in Iran last year, according to United Nations estimates. Most were charged with drug-related crimes and belonged to ethnic minorities, new studies show.

“Despite signs of openness with the election of President (Hassan) Rohani almost a year ago, the human rights situation in Iran has dramatically deteriorated,” Taimoor Aliassi, U.N. representative of the Association of Human Rights in Kurdistan of Iran – Geneva, told IPS.“Iran is the second executioner country in the world behind China, but the first one per capita." -- Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan, executive director of French NGO Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort

At least 687 prisoners have been executed in 2013, 68 percent of them after the presidential election in June 2013, Aliassi said. This is the highest figure in 15 years.

The vast majority, he said, were from ethnic minorities such as Kurds, Baloch and Baha’is. “The repression of these minorities has accentuated.”

Aliassi’s comments followed a report by Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Iran, detailing the executions. The Iranian government labelled the findings “not objective” and “mostly a compilation of unfounded allegations.” It is opposing the renewal of Shaheed’s mandate.

“Last year, there were two executions a day,” Shaheed said at a meeting in Geneva earlier this week on rights in Iran. “Sixty percent of them were related to drug crimes. Many did not have access to lawyers, and confessions were got under torture. Three juveniles were among those hanged.”

Shaheed contested the Iranian government allegation that his report is based on opposition sources, or even terrorists. “Even though I could not get into the country, I talked to 700 people. I do my interviews by Skype. If I was able to go to Iran, there would be government views in my report. It would be in its advantage.”

“Iran is the second executioner country in the world behind China, but the first one per capita,” Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan, executive director of the French NGO Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort, told IPS. The NGO was created in 2000 to investigate death penalties. It launched the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty that holds a congress every three years.

“The death penalty is a benchmark for human rights,” Hazan said. “It opens the door to the scrutiny of other human rights violations like juvenile justice, ethnic minorities, public executions, torture and unfair trials. We manage to work with grassroots NGOs in all countries, including China and Iraq, but not in Iran.”

The Iranian government, Hazan said, like North Korea “does not allow local NGOs to come to our congress. Our sources are individuals we identify in the prisons. Last year we counted 687 executions. We know it is more, but this is the figure we are able to prove in our report.” The U.N. report is in line with findings by NGOs.

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, spokesperson of Iran Human Rights, an NGO based in Oslo with members both inside and outside Iran told IPS that “56 percent of the figures included in this report are official, and 44 percent have been confirmed by us independently.”

Last year, he said, the group “documented 59 public executions, all of them announced officially. Children are also watching executions since there is no age limit. But there are so many secret executions in prisons that we need independent investigations.”

According to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Iran, countries that have not abolished the death penalty can impose it only for the most serious crimes.

“Since 2010, more than 1,800 people have been executed on drug-related charges. But is the possession of 30 grams of heroin, morphine, opium or methadone a ‘most serious crime?’” said Hazan.

Other reasons for capital punishment are “corruption on earth”, rebellion, sexual offences including same-sex relations, organised crime, robbery and smuggling, murder and other religious offences. At least 28 women were hanged publicly in 2013, according to the Special Rapporteur.

Some NGOs accuse the government itself of fostering drug addiction for political reasons, particularly in the Kurdish area. “It is practising an anti-Kurdish policy of pushing youth into drugs and then arresting them,” Karen Parker, a human rights attorney based in San Francisco, told IPS.

Gianfranco Fattorini, of the Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP), a French NGO that supports against racism and discrimination, told the meeting in Geneva that 20 Kurdish activists are known to be on death row and 25 Kurdish political activists have been sentenced to death for propaganda against national security and similar charges.

Diane Ala’i, of the Baha’i International Community, an international NGO representing members of the Baha’i faith, says the persecution of Baha’is is engrained in the constitution that recognises only three religious minorities – Christians, Jews and Zoroastrian. Members of the Baha’i religious minority are persecuted from the time they are born till they die, said Ala’i at the meeting in Geneva.

“Children are ostracised at school; youngsters are denied access to university and to jobs in the public sector. Today 136 Baha’is are in prison only because they are Baha’is. The accusation goes from enmity against god, to being spies or belonging to an illegal organisation. Some of these people are elderly; others are young mothers who have to take their children into prison.”

She added that their cemeteries are bulldozed and “it is clear that these horrible acts are condoned by the authorities.” Violent crimes and incitement to hatred are rising against Baha’is and other minorities, but none of these cases have been investigated by judicial authorities. “This is government orchestrated,” she said.

But more and more Iranians are showing solidarity with the Baha’is, she said. Last week, 75 prominent activists asked the head of the judiciary to give the benefit of Islamic law even to “unrecognised religious minorities” like the Baha’is.

Influential personalities like renowned film-maker Asghar Farhadi have signed an open charter to ask for abolition of the death penalty, following a campaign called Legam (step by step abolition of the death penalty) initiated last November.

“Since they are well known, they encounter fewer risks to go to prison. This shows that civil society is advancing. Now it is up to the government to show that it is opening up too,” said Hazan.

When the American Centre in Colombo held a memorial event honouring the late South African President Nelson Mandela, the first few questions at the question and answer session had nothing to do with the great freedom fighter.

The questions raised at the meeting Dec. 20 were about how South Africa could assist Sri Lanka set up its own national healing process. During the Commonwealth Heads of State summit (CHOGM) in Colombo in November, President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government had approached the African state to explore the possibility of assistance in setting up something akin to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

According to the South African envoy in Colombo, Geoff Doidge, the request was made to South African President Jacob Zuma at the summit. “The past will haunt you as a country, even if you go forward, without a TRC-like process in Sri Lanka,” Zuma had told the meeting.

The questions on the TRC were symbolic of the kind of focus Sri Lanka’s rights record, and government efforts to correct it, have received since a bloody civil war ended almost five years back.

The Commonwealth meeting turned the spotlight on that rights record yet again. While attending the summit, British Prime Minister David Cameron visited the former war zone in the north with a retinue of reporters and journalists. During his whistle-stop tour, Cameron was quick to stress that Sri Lanka lagged behind in its efforts to address international concerns over rights violations.

Cameron said that the UK would back stricter international strictures against the Rajapaksa government if it does not redress the situation.

“The spotlight will be on Sri Lanka to demonstrate it is committed to Commonwealth (values),” British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka John Rankin said before the Commonwealth meet.

Cameron’s comments resulted in a barrage of criticism against him locally, but international advocates pushing for a credible investigation into rights violations welcomed it.

“It has reinforced the need for an international inquiry,” Steve Crashaw, director for the Office of the Secretary General at Amnesty International who was in Sri Lanka during the Commonwealth meeting told IPS.

Crashaw said Cameron’s actions should be followed by other international players. “It should not be limited to a one-off media event.”

It is unlikely to be. The U.S. has expressed similar sentiments that Colombo needs to do more to investigate wartime allegations, especially about the thousands of civilians who have gone missing. The New Year is now likely to see more pressure on the Sri Lankan government.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Nisha Desai Biswal is expected in Sri Lanka in mid-January. During her first visit to the island Biswal is expected to discuss issue pertaining to investigations into disappearances and deaths.

Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa set up a new commission in late November to tabulate wartime deaths. The new census is being conducted by the Department of Census and Statistics.

A similar effort by the same department in 2011 found after looking at vital events in the North and East that 4,156 persons were untraceable in the two provinces since 2005. International organisations including an advisory panel to the UN Secretary General have put figures of civilian disappearances close to ten times that.

The newly formed Northern Provincial Council, controlled by the opposition Tamil National Alliance, has already said it would launch its own census of the disappeared since it did not trust the numbers produced by government surveys.

National rights activists told IPS that pressure by the likes of the UK, the U.S. and next-door neighbour India, whose prime minister stayed away from the Commonwealth confab, is leading the government at least to take note of uncomfortable issues.

“At the very least, it strengthens the determination and courage of victims, their families, a few journalists, lawyers, the clergy and activists who continue to struggle for truth and justice,” Rukshan Fernando, board member of the national advocacy group Rights Now told IPS.

Fernando observed that if the government continues to drag its heels, it could face a tough reception at the upcoming March sessions of the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council. Over the past two years the council has adopted resolutions calling on the Sri Lankan government to address lingering allegations of rights violations.

However, neither resolution has included any mention of the possibility of an international rights inquiry.

“The members of the Council have toughened the position on Sri Lanka from 2009 to 2012 and 2013, and the Indian PM’s boycott of CHOGM indicates that India is ready to be tougher on Sri Lanka,” Fernando said.

India’s role has changed considerably in the last five years. In mid-2009 when the war was in its final stages, India was instrumental in stalling a resolution brought on by European nations condemning Sri Lankan government actions.

In 2014, domestic political exigencies may push New Delhi to come full circle, according to Ramani Hariharan, a political commentator from India who served as intelligence officer with the Indian Peace Keeping Force that was stationed in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 1990.

“The UNHCR meet will be held in March 2014 when the Indian parliamentary poll campaign will be in full steam. The Congress (government’s) fortunes are at stake and it is likely to oblige the Dravida Munnetra K’azhagam [DMK] party’s demand to keep it in the coalition.” The DMK is a dominant party in India’s Tamil Nadu.

It was due to pressure from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu with its Tamil majority population, that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stayed away from Colombo in November.

“The UN Human Rights Council sessions can create significant pressure on Sri Lanka,” Amnesty International’s Crashaw said.

A rally in Ramallah in support of the Palestinian bid at the UN. Credit: Jillian Kestler-D’Amours/IPS.

By Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
RAMALLAH, Occupied West Bank, Nov 30 2012 (IPS)

Thousands of Palestinians gathered throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip Thursday, including representatives of all the major political factions, to celebrate and to show their support for the Palestinian Authority’s bid for upgraded status at the United Nations.

“I’m here in support. We want a state like all the other Arab states,” 28-year-old Ramallah resident Amar Qendah told IPS from Clock Square in downtown Ramallah, which was covered in banners and Palestinian flags in support of the UN bid.

“All of us are together; all the Palestinian political parties are together as one. God willing this will improve our situation,” Qendah said.

In a session that began at 10:30 pm local time Thursday, Palestine succeeded in its bid to become a “non-member observer” at the UN General Assembly. In all 138 states voted in favour of the Palestinian motion, nine states voted against it, and 41 abstained.

“Your support for our endeavour today will give a reason for hope to a people besieged by a racist, colonial occupation. Your support will confirm to our people that they are not alone and their adherence to international law is never going to be a losing proposition,” said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in a speech that garnered a standing ovation in the General Assembly shortly before the vote took place.

“The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine,” Abbas said.

Palestinians have held “permanent observer” status at the UN since 1974. The upgrade will now allow them to participate in General Assembly discussions, and will give them a better chance to be admitted to UN agencies and file claims in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Palestinian admission to the ICC has seemingly been the most conscientious issue for Israel, which fears that it may face charges for crimes committed against Palestinians living under its ongoing occupation. Israel and the United States – which voted against the Palestinian motion Thursday – have both condemned Palestinian appeals to the UN.

Watching the festivities at Clock Square in Ramallah Thursday, Koaibah Shtayeh from the northern West Bank city of Nablus told IPS that holding Israel accountable in an international court was the biggest reason she supported the PA’s decision to seek upgraded status at the UN.

“We can go after these Israeli leaders who have murdered thousands of Palestinians. So many things will change,” she said optimistically. “This will affect the future (for younger Palestinians). It will give them a different future than the one I had myself.”

The push for upgraded status at the UN was the latest in a string of steps taken by the PA to reach its goal of an independent Palestinian state, made up of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as the capital.

In September 2011, PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas presented an application for statehood to the UN Security Council. This was eventually blocked after Security Council member states were unable to make a unanimous recommendation.

Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported that thousands of people marched in the southern West Bank city of Hebron Thursday in support of the appealing to the UN for upgraded status. Fatah – the Palestinian political party that forms the majority of the PA – also held its first rally in the Gaza Strip since 2007, when a major rift formed between it and rival party Hamas, which governs Gaza.

Despite these moves towards Palestinian reconciliation, Israeli leaders have made clear that upgraded status at the UN will not alter the present situation. “The decision at the United Nations won’t change anything on the ground. It won’t promote the creation of a Palestinian state, it will distance it,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

Many Palestinians also voiced skepticism that their lives would improve as a result of upgraded UN status.

“We are under the foot of occupation. The international community is still supporting Israel. Israel is a state established through the UN and it’s a state that is not respecting and violating the UN resolutions,” said Fathy Khdeirat, coordinator of the Jordan Valley Solidarity campaign.

The Jordan Valley makes up over 30 percent of the West Bank. It is often referred to as the “Palestinian breadbasket” for its high agricultural potential. But Israel controls over 86 percent of the land and almost all of its abundant resources, and places stringent restrictions on Palestinian communities in the area.

Khdeirat told IPS that living under these difficult conditions most Palestinians in the Jordan Valley were disinterested in the UN bid. “It’s not like the day after going to the United Nations there will be changes. I don’t think that it will change. But if we compare it with keeping silent or accepting the situation, it’s better to tell the world what’s going on here.” (END)

With their rights now on the backburner, Palestinians in Gaza look to tunnels as their only effective outlet to the world. Credit: Eva Bartlett/IPS.

By Walter García and Pierre Klochendler
JERUSALEM, Oct 7 2012 (IPS)

The annual debate has just wrapped up and, already, the certainty is that if last year Palestinian statehood auspiciously dominated the international agenda, this time, the issue vanished from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), and will vanish even further from world affairs.

When Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas looked down on the General Assembly plenum a fortnight ago, though the hall was packed, he probably felt lonely. He knew his would be the sole address devoted to the cause of an independent Palestinian state in peace alongside Israel.

For the umpteenth time, Abbas depicted how Israel’s settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territories renders year by year a two-state solution to the conflict more unattainable – to no avail.

His speech was similar in essence to the one he’d delivered exactly one year ago at the same place – except that this time, his bid was limited to gaining non-member state status, not full statehood recognition at the U.N. Security Council.

Abbas’s statehood bid was shelved as soon as it was introduced. The U.S. and its Western allies had pressed the Security Council and the General Assembly not to proceed with the largely symbolic vote.

Then, prodded by the U.S., the reason advanced by the Security Council powers was that peace moves with Israel, not a unilateral move, had to be given another chance. As consolation price, a month later, Palestine gained UNESCO membership.

A year on, what Abbas drew from the General Assembly was the kind of almost casually apologetic words of recognition and appraisal that the Palestinian issue garners at every global forum.

The General Assembly was the first and leading power supporting a two-state solution. In November 1947, it voted the Partition Plan between a Jewish state and an Arab state in Mandatory Palestine.

But ever since the historic General Assembly vote, quasi-universal, though insipid, pledges and rubberstamp commitments to Palestinian statehood have been dutifully distilled by UN member states.

In his address, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu simply ignored his predecessor.

Surely, he submitted to the ritual. “We have to (…) negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise,” he urged emphatically.

But he allocated two minutes of his speech to the Palestinian question at best, demonstrating thereby (if anyone needed such demonstration) that literally, wording an ironclad resolution on the future of Palestine will remain punctuated by a big question mark.

Netanyahu had heard U.S. President Barack Obama’s address. Albeit the usual hymn – or was it a eulogy? – to the bygone dream of a negotiated two-state solution which was wrapped in a single paragraph, Obama didn’t conceal the fact that, right now, diplomacy is urgently needed – but not between Israel and Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

So, Netanyahu dedicated his address to calling for a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme – this, in order to “prevent war”.

With noises of war against Iran permeating the General Assembly debates (though Obama had earlier pledged “to block out any noise that’s out there”), no wonder that the only recipe to the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate consisted of rueful expressions of solidarity with the Palestinians’ predicament.

There were times, not that long ago, when the Israel-Palestine conflict was the centre of gravity in international affairs.

Last winter, three rounds of exploratory talks in Amman in Jordan, between Israeli and Palestinian delegates failed to bring any result.

Palestine has sunk into oblivion, orbiting around an Israeli-imposed sphere of “conflict management” rather than gravitating toward U.S.-led “conflict resolution”. A “low-intensity conflict”, it’s therefore been relegated to the backburner of world concerns.

The dubious ‘Headline News’ mantra, “when it bleeds, it leads”, has diverted public attention from the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Far more blood is spilled in other fracture lines of the area – between Shias and Sunnis, between liberals and Islamists, between Arab dictatorships and their pro-democracy citizenry, between Jihadist and all the mentioned-above parties.

The truth is, if one compares it with the upheavals convoluting the Arab Muslim world – in Syria notably, but also elsewhere in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region – the Israel-Palestine conflict doesn’t appear that malignant.

And, far more blood would be spilled were Iran’s nuclear programme be tackled belligerently.

And yet, without renewed focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the U.S. and its Western allies (including Israel) will have a hard time convincing Arab leaders, Russia and China – themselves extremely perturbed by Iran’s nuclear programme – that a unified and more muscular approach must be adopted.

Were it to prod Israelis and Palestinians to re-engage in negotiations, the U.S. could perhaps sway public opinion, absorbed by a deep pro-Palestinian sentiment from the anti-U.S. feelings of humiliation pervading many Arab countries, as last month’s violent assaults on U.S. legations in Libya and Egypt again exposed.

That, in turn, could persuade Arab allies, as well as Russia and China, to adhere to increased pressure on Iran. But such U.S. endeavour will have to wait for a new president.

Moreover, Netanyahu’s “red line” argument would probably be more convincing were he to draw a line on his own policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, policies which traditionally elicit worldwide censure.

But why would he, for instance, be prodded to introduce a moratorium on settlement construction similar to the 10-month freeze he reluctantly agreed to impose in 2010?

After all, didn’t he implicitly agree at the U.N. that until next year’s spring or summer, Israel would allow diplomacy and sanctions to run their course. Netanyahu predicted that only by then Tehran would complete the threshold stage of its uranium enrichment.

Besides, he might be inclined to call for Israeli elections in February.

Red lines, deadlines, are like all lines: politicians like Netanyahu are seasoned enough in the art of ‘tight-roping’ a thin line. His is between war with Iran and peace with Palestine. He could still walk both. But as long as Iran’s and Syria’s leaders walk their own fine line, why should he? And so, the Israel-Palestine conflict will remain on the sidelines, in limbo.