Aug. 4, 2004
Q&A with envoy to the UN Gillerman

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman answers JPost readers' questions

Menny Kauffman, The Hague: Why did Israel not send a legal representative during the ICJ hearings in the Hague last month? It was a missed opportunity.

Dan Gillerman: Israel, together with a large number of states, did not support the request for the ICJ opinion. We submitted a detailed document to the court noting that the request was inappropriate. As we did not recognize the jurisdiction of the court, we did not send a representative.

Marc Levine, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey: Whenever the UN votes against Israel, I notice that there always the same small number of countries that side with Israel. Among them are Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. Why does this strange mix of islands always support Israel?

Dan Gillerman: The States that consistently support Israel at the UN vote for what they believe is right — not because of their own interests. We wish more countries voted according to their conscience, rather than along political lines.

Eileen Mooney, Massachussetts: Do you see any role at all for the UN in reaching some level of peace in the Mideast?

Dan Gillerman: The latest vote at the UN General Assembly contributed little to the credibility of the United Nations, and nothing to the cause of peace. The UNGA has been manipulated by the Arab Group in recent years, and although Israel still believes the ideals of the UN have a role in bringing peace to the Middle East, each successive partisan initiative makes it harder to see.

David Guy, Rehovot, Israel; Peter Reitzes, Brooklyn, NY; Will King, Jerusalem, Israel: Why does Israel continue to pay dues and be a party to an organization who spends the majority of its time, in the majority of its committees and forums, to pass one-sided anti-Israel resolutions that don’t contribute to solving the real problems of terror and incitement by the Arabs? At what point could Israel decide that the time has come to voluntarily withdraw from the UN? Switzerland and Taiwan are not members and are still doing well.

Dan Gillerman: First of all, Switzerland is in fact a member of the United Nations. In any case, Israel does not wish to be apart from the rest of the world. Although the UN resolutions regarding Israel are often unfortunate, we think that Israel has a place in a forum where all nations of the world are represented. It was, after all, the UN where Israel was first created, and we continue to regard it as an important arena.

George Weize, Sydney, Australia; Ronny Schnapp Sydney, Australia: Can Israel introduce its own resolutions and call for an emergency session of the General Assembly after every Palestinian terror attack? Why not attack the PA at the United Nations for embarking on suicide bombing as a strategic choice and take it to Hague Court?

Dan Gillerman: Israel does not think that the UN should be so politicized, and believes that the Palestinian habit of abusing the UN Agenda is not helpful.

Jaime Jankelevich, Santiago, Chile; Erno Salonen, Turkey: How can we interpret the position of the EU in the last vote regarding the security fence? How do you explain that in the UN the most secular and atheist parties in Europe (left-wing parties) always join with the Arabs against the state of Israel?

Dan Gillerman: Israel is very disappointed by the EU position in the last vote. It was especially surprising since many European countries previously expressed concern about this misuse of the advisory process. The Europeans should perhaps think more carefully about this position if they are to have a full role in the peace process.

Howard Cooper, Arlington, Virginia: Do you foresee any role for the UN or UN peacekeepers during and following Israel’s pullout from Gaza?

Dan Gillerman: The Israeli Government is categorically opposed to any international involvement in the disengagement process.

Moshe Jacobs, New York, New York: Why do we not defend the fact that the West Bank was won in a defensive war and is not occupied territory?

Dan Gillerman: The West Bank was in fact won in a defensive war, and Israel rejects its categorization as "occupied." At the same time, Israel has affirmed repeatedly that the end goal of the peace process is a two-state solution.

Harlan Piper, Boston, Massachussetts: We’ve heard that a security fence built on the Green Line would not be as effective as one that at least partially crosses over the line. Why is this?

Dan Gillerman: The Green Line is an artificial division that does not follow the demands of natural terrain, or the political realities on the ground. To be successful in meeting the strictest security needs of the States of Israel, the Security Fence has to follow the needs of population groupings and the natural contour of the land.

Guram Abashidze, Tbilisi, Georgia: What is Georgia’s record of voting at the UN GA on the sticking points for Israel, namely, on the defense barrier?

Dan Gillerman: Georgia voted against Israel at this latest vote at the General Assembly.

Simon Brooke, Cape Town, South Africa: Shouldn’t the UN vote system be changed to accommodate those counties which contribute more to the UN? Surely this would counter the dominance of third world countries dominating voting proceedings.

Dan Gillerman: The UN should be a forum for all countries, rich and poor, large and small, to have a say. It is a shame, however, that its agenda has been hijacked by non-democratic States who oppose the ideals on which the UN was founded.

Lea Shaek, Karmiel, Israel: How do you get up every day and face those horrible people at the UN?

Dan Gillerman: I get up every morning, knowing that I have a very important mission — to represent Israel at the United Nations. Despite the obstacles we face, it is an honor to represent the State of Israel to the world.

Tzila Carlisle, Belfast, Northern Ireland: Is the Israeli government going to abide by the courts decision regarding demolishing the fence?

Dan Gillerman: Very recently Israel’s Supreme court issued a landmark ruling on the security fence, demanding that humanitarian considerations be weighed against the needs of security. Unlike the advisory opinion of the ICJ, the ruling of Israel’s Supreme Court is binding. Israel is a country that respects the rule of law, and will fully comply with the decisions of its courts.

Michael Richmond, Miami, Florida: Are Israel and the international community doing enough to stop Iran from obtaining nukes and what more can be done about this very ominous situation?

Dan Gillerman: The Iranian nuclear program is of great concern to Israel and the entire international community. Israel has urged and continues to urge the world to pay more attention to the tremendous dangers posed by a nuclear Iran.

Linda Campion, Fulham, SA: Do you think the UN will go ahead with the threatened sanctions against Israel?

Dan Gillerman: The Israeli Government and the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations are doing all that they can to ward off the threat of these immoral sanctions. I am confident that with the aid of other right-thinking, ethical States, we will be successful in this effort.

Shep Fargotstein, Memphis, Tennessee: How much of the anti-Israel bias in the UN would you attribute to anti-Semitism and how much would you attribute it to the influence that the Arabs have bought with their oil wealth (multi-billion dollar contracts with various countries, for instance)? In other words, if a viable energy alternative to oil was developed, could you envision a dramatic change in the worldview vis-a-vis Israel?

Dan Gillerman: Israel certainly has to contend with the effects of anti-Semitism, and its various incarnations, at the United Nations, but the effect of oil on Middle Eastern geopolitics in undeniable. A viable energy alternative would certainly be to Israel’s advantage.