Mediaboss Marketing

CHRIS DUNKER Lincoln Journal Star

A board member on the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District is suing her colleagues in federal court for leveling sanctions against her after she criticized the behavior of another director earlier this year.

Melissa Temple, who won election to represent eastern Norfolk on the 15-member board in 2022, was removed from her subcommittee assignments and barred from being reimbursed for travel expenses by a majority of the board in August.

On Tuesday, Temple sued the board in U.S. District Court in Lincoln for violating her First Amendment right to free speech, claiming that the resolution adopted by the board prevents her from doing her duties as a duly-elected board member.

I cant fully do my job or advocate for the public good or protect my constituents if my free speech is sanctioned, Temple said in a phone interview.

The lawsuit, the first filed by the Nebraska College of Laws First Amendment Clinic, also seeks a preliminary injunction to suspend the punishments against Temple until the case is resolved.

According to the complaint, Temple said she witnessed another member of the Board of Directors Scott Clausen interrupt and make condescending comments to a local business executive during the public comment portion of the boards meeting.

Clausens comments were allegedly made after an email from the boards chairman asked directors to listen respectfully when the public is able to address the board.

The lawsuit also accuses Clausen of making derogatory remarks about Temple in the presence of other directors and staff during a public board meeting, including saying she was not smart enough to be on a proposed committee.

Clausen also allegedly asked why the board was concerned about nitrates in drinking water a growing public health concern in Nebraska and other agricultural states if it was just affecting women and children.

Temple filed a formal complaint against Clausen with the board chairman in line with the NRDs bylaws, and later spoke to reporters who had obtained a copy of the document through a public records request.

An investigation into the complaint by the boards executive committee ended inconclusively, and a short time later, Clausen filed his own complaint against Temple claiming her allegations against him were false and part of an effort to defame him, the lawsuit states.

While Clausens complaint was being investigated, Temple told local media outlets she believed the process was biased and unfair and would result in a loss of accountability for the board.

In July, the executive committee ended its investigation with a finding that Temple had violated the code of decorum by failing to serve as a model of leadership and civility by sharing details of the investigation, including accusations of misogyny against other directors.

After the investigation, the board later scheduled a vote on four proposed sanctions public reprimand, removal from all subcommittees for a year, suspension of the right to make motions for a year, and barring reimbursement for NRD-related travel for a special meeting in August when Temple was going to be absent.

More than 60 people spoke during the special meeting in support of Temple, asking directors not to censure her. Following a closed session, the board approved a resolution with three of the four sanctions. The penalty that would have prevented Temple from making motions for a year was removed.

The punishments leveled at Temple prevent her from participating in much of the boards work, according to the lawsuit, which states a significant amount of Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District business takes place at the subcommittee level.

Temples attorneys cite a 2022 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that found a member of a community college board had his First Amendment rights violated when a majority of the board adopted a resolution to censure him.

Justices found the sanctions imposed by the board violated the members First Amendment rights by preventing him from doing his job and denying him any privilege of office.

The complaint also says that stripping Temple of her ability to seek NRD-related travel expenses ran counter to state law, which says board members shall be reimbursed for any costs incurred through their duties.

Temple said that action has prevented her from obtaining reimbursement to the Nebraska Natural Resource Districts annual conference in September, and will prevent her from attending conferences and trainings on behalf of her constituents and the district.

The lawsuit accuses the Lower Norfolk Natural Resources District of retaliating against Temple for engaging in protected speech, both in trying to address her concerns internally as well as in speaking about them publicly.

Like all elected officials, Temple has a right to speak freely on issues of governmental policy and concern, and her decision to speak with the Norfolk Daily News is therefore protected activity under the First Amendment, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the NRDs actions violated Temples First Amendment rights, as well as her rights to due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

It also seeks a declaration that the actions taken at the special board meeting in August are void, an injunction against the sanctions from being enforced, as well as damages and attorneys fees.

I would like my rights as an elected official to be restored, Temple said. I want to be a fully functional board member, I want the voice of my constituents to be represented fully.

Sydney Hayes, assistant director of the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said the case was a good candidate to become the student-run law firms first effort.

The right to criticize public officials is so woven into the fabric of democracy and the First Amendment, and the fact that Director Temple was sanctioned for criticizing one of her colleagues that really is the only reason she was sanctioned is why we wanted to pursue this case, Hayes said.

Daniel Gutman, the director of the clinic, said that although the clinic filed the lawsuit and represents Temple, students wont join the law clinic until January. At that time, the third-year students will pick up and argue the case.

This is a core First Amendment issue and were a First Amendment Clinic, Gutman said. When this case came to us, it was important that we advocate for it.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Original post:
UNL's First Amendment Clinic files lawsuit on behalf of sanctioned ... - Grand Island Independent

It's part of the University of the Pacific (McGeorge Law School) Law Review symposium on Israel, Palestine, and the First Amendment, and it's based on amicus briefs that I had filed together with Profs. Michael Dorf and Andrew Koppelman. You can read the article here; here's the opening paragraph and the Introduction:

Anti-BDS laws, which bar government contractors from boycotting Israel, are generally constitutionalfor the same reason that anti-discrimination laws are generally constitutional: Refusals to deal are, outside some narrow situations, generally unprotected by the First Amendment.

Decisions not to buy or sell goods or services are generally not protected by the First Amendment. That is the necessary implication of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, and it is the foundation of the wide range of anti-discrimination laws, public accommodation laws, and common carrier laws throughout the nation.

Thus, for instance:

Of course, all these people would have every right to speak out against same-sex weddings, Catholicism, the Democratic Party, unions, and Israel. That would be speech, which is indeed protected by the First Amendment. For this reason, when phrases such as "otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations" appear in various anti-BDS statutes, courts should read them as covering only commercial conduct such as that listed in the preceding phrases ("refusing to deal with" and "terminating business activities with"), and not extending to advocacy.

But as a general matter, a decision not to do business with someone, even when it is politically motivated (and even when it is part of a broader political movement), is not protected by the First Amendment. And though people might have the First Amendment right to discriminate (or boycott) in some unusual circumstancesfor instance when they refuse to participate in distributing or creating speech they disapprove ofthat is a basis for a narrow as-applied challenge, not a facial one.

For this reason, properly crafted anti-BDS statutesthe subjects of this symposium, and of recent debates about boycotts more broadlyare constitutional, as are contracts based on such provisions. And, of course, the logic of this would apply to a wide range of statutes that forbid (or mandate) various kinds of boycotts or other refusals to deal.

The details are in the full article (just 14 pages).

More:
Now Published: "The First Amendment and Refusals to Deal" - Reason

Other judges say it is. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled on Sept. 21 that West Texas A&M University, a public university in Canyon, Texas, can constitutionally ban on-campus drag performances, at least for now. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee best known for attempting to revoke the Food and Drug Administrations approval of medication abortion, described all drag performances as inherently sexualized and stated that at this point in Free Speech jurisprudence, it is not clearly established that all drag shows are categorically expressive conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. In March 2023, Spectrum WT, a student organization that seeks to provide a safe space for LGBT+ students and raise awareness of the LGBT+ community, planned to host a fundraiser to raise funds for The Trevor Project, a non-profit organization that provides crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to queer youth. This fundraiser would have included a drag show. Before Spectrum WT could host its event, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler issued a letter announcing that the university will not host a drag show on campus. In his letter, Wendler likens drag performances to blackface and describes them as derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny and claims they stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others[,] discriminate against womanhood [and] contribute to womens suffering via a slapstick sideshow that erodes the worth of women. Wendler also stated that he would not permit Spectrum WTs drag show, or any future ones, even when the law of the land appears to require it. In response to this letter, Spectrum WT sued Wendler and other university administrators for violating the First Amendment. As part of its lawsuit, Spectrum WT requested a preliminary injunction which would have, if granted, presumed Wendlers actions unconstitutional and temporarily barred the university from enforcing its ban on drag shows until the court reached a final decision in the case. In his order denying Spectrum WTs request for a preliminary injunction, Kacsmaryk gives four reasons to justify his decision to deprive Spectrum WTs drag show of First Amendment protection. First, he writes that drag shows do not obviously convey or communicate a discernable, protectable message. Second, the universitys campus is not a traditional public forum. Third, Wendler can regulate sexualized conduct to protect children. Fourth, an on-campus drag show could potentially violate federal, state, and university policies prohibiting discrimination against women. For the foregoing reasons, Kacsmaryk concludes that President Wendler did not violate a clearly established right and that his disapproval of an on-campus drag show was not objectively unreasonable. While Kacsmaryks order presumes the constitutionality of President Wendlers actions, it is not a final decision, nor does it carry any precedential weight for this case or other cases. Kacsmaryks suggestion that drag show performances are protected by the First Amendment runs counter to every other federal judge that has adjudicated state efforts to censor drag. Judges in Florida, Montana, Utah and Tennessee have blocked laws seeking to ban or restrict drag performances. Another federal judge in Texas has invalidated anti-drag legislation as unconstitutional since Kacsmaryks order last month. U.S. District Judge David Hittner struck down Texas S.B. 12 on Sept. 26 as violative of the First Amendment. This law, described by Texas officials as a drag ban, sought to ban so-called sexually oriented performances from public property and allowed municipalities to regulate sexually oriented performances however they see fit. Hittners ruling comes after he granted S.B. 12s challengers a preliminary injunction on Aug. 31 before the law took effect. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intends to appeal Hittners ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and has pledged to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if Texas again loses. Spectrum WT, represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, has since appealed Kacsmaryks denial of a preliminary injunction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals while its lawsuit proceeds in the District Court. In a press release, it characterized Kacsmaryks order as disheartening and a slap in the face to freedom of speech.

See original here:
Federal judge says drag not protected by First Amendment The ... - TU Collegian

Just days away before jury selection begins in the Georgia trial of Kenneth Chesebro, the state judge presiding in his case on Wednesday denied two pre-trial motions from the former election lawyer for former President Donald Trump.

Both motions centered on Chesebro's communications in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. In one, he argued the charges against him should be dismissed because his communications about the election were protected by the First Amendment. In another, Chesebro sought to have his memoranda and emails excluded from the trial, arguing they are protected under attorney-client privilege.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee denied both motions in separate orders Wednesday.

"The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications concerning proposed infractions of the law in the commission of a crime or the perpetration of a fraud," McAfee wrote in the order denying Chesebro's motion to exclude his emails and memoranda.

In his separate order denying Chesebro's effort to dismiss charges on First Amendment grounds, McAfee wrote that the motion was "premature" at the pre-trial stage. Chesebro's First Amendment arguments were joined by fellow Trump attorney and co-defendant Sidney Powell.

The judge's two orders Wednesday followed a separate order Tuesday denying 11 different motions Chesebro and Powell filed seeking dismissal of charges they are facing.

Jury selection for the trial of Chesebro and Powell is currently scheduled to begin Friday. The two former Trump election attorneys are facing trial ahead of the other defendants after requesting expedited proceedings under Georgia's Speedy Trial Act.

Powell and Chesebro have pleaded not guilty to seven state felony counts against them in the election-racketeering indictment that also included charges against former President Donald Trump and 16 others.

Continue reading here:
Georgia Judge Rejects Pro-Trump Lawyer's Motion to Dismiss RICO ... - The Messenger

In the aftermath of an air strike on a northern Gaza hospital that marked a sharp escalation in the ongoing Israel-Gaza crisis, the Security Council today failed to adopt a resolution put forth by Brazil that would have called for humanitarian pauses to allow full, safe and unhindered access for United Nations agencies and their partners, due to a veto cast by a permanent member of the Council, the United States.

If adopted, the resolution would have condemned all violence and hostilities against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and would have unequivocally rejected and condemned the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October. It would have also called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and for the protection of all medical personnel and humanitarian personnel, as well as hospitals and medical facilities, consistent with international humanitarian law.

By other terms, it would have called for the rescission of the order for civilians and UN staff to evacuate all areas in Gaza north of the Wadi Gaza and relocate in southern Gaza. It would have also strongly urged the continuous, sufficient and unhindered provision of essential goods and services to civilians, including electricity, water, fuel, food and medical supplies, under international humanitarian law.

Although the United States cast a veto, the draft resolution garnered support from 12Council members, including two permanent members (China, France), with two other permanent members (United Kingdom, Russian Federation) abstaining.

Prior to voting on the text, the Council voted on two amendments proposed by the Russian Federation, neither of which were adopted as they failed to obtain the required number of votes. The first amendment, proposed above the first operative paragraph, would have called for an immediate and fully respected humanitarian ceasefire, while the second would have called for the insertion of a new operative paragraph unequivocally condemning indiscriminate attacks against civilians, as well as against civilian objects in the Gaza Strip resulting in civilian casualties, in particular the strike against Al Ahli Arab Hospital.

Speaking after the vote, Brazils delegate said that Council members had asked forhis countrys leadership to facilitate a response to the crisis, in particular its humanitarian aspects, stating: We heeded the call. In our view, the Council had to take action and do so very quickly. While the text proposed was robust and balanced, sadly, very sadly, the Council was yet again unable to adopt a resolution on the conflict, he said, adding that, again, silence prevailed to no ones long-term interest. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza cannot wait any longer, actually they have waited for far too long, to no avail.

The delegate of the United States, pointing to President Joseph R. Bidens trip to the region at present, saidthat, while she recognizes Brazils desire to move the draft resolution forward, the Council needs to let the hard work of diplomacy undertaken by her country play out. Expressing disappointment that the draft did not mention Israels right to self-defence, she noted that, although Washington, D.C., was not able to support the text, it will continue to work on the issue. When I talk about the protection of civilians, I mean all civilians, she added.

The Russian Federation deplored the hypocrisy and double standards of the United States, while pointing out that, even before todays vote, the Councils failure to adopt a resolution put forth by his delegation two days before looks appalling in light of the 17October attack on Al Ahli Arab Hospital. Quoting Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Officer James Taiclets statement to United States media, as an encapsulation of that countrys policy in the region, he said: Theres no point in restraining Israel from any military actions. [] There are conflicts which need to be resolved with arms and we are prepared to provide these arms, these weapons.

Meanwhile, Japans representative said that, while he had voted in favour of the text as he supported its main ideas and had in mind the humanitarian situation in Gaza, his delegation hadasked to delay the vote on the resolution proposed by Brazil, as diplomatic efforts by various countries, including the United States, were under way. Voicing regret that the text was brought to a vote today, he said his country would nonetheless work towards ensuring the safety of civilians and to realize an early de-escalation of the situation.

The delegate of the United Arab Emirates, noting that she voted in favour of the text as it stated basic principles, not because it was perfect, said: Each passing hour of this ruinous war makes a mockery of the principles of international humanitarian law. More Palestinians have died in this outbreak of violence than in any other in the history of the conflict, she said, voicing support for no less than a humanitarian ceasefire. As well, she called for an investigation into the attack on the hospital which provided medical care for Gazans for more than 140years. Although Hamas is indeed responsible for sparking this latest fire that is now engulfing the streets of the capitals around the region, she said: Make no mistake. The kindling was already there fuelled by decades of violent dehumanization.

THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST, INCLUDING THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION

Statements before Voting

VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation), recalled that, during consultations on16October, many Security Council members sought to dissuade them on the depoliticized draft put forth by his country and asked to wait for 24hours to reach consensus, adding: We did not agree, and we were right. Two days later, changes that were proposed to the resolution had not been discussed, he said, voicing regret that the Council wasted 36precious hours, during which the number of casualties increased. In the context of the 17October strike on a hospital in Gaza, which killed hundreds, the Councils inaction looks appalling, he said, warning: The time for diplomatic metaphors has long gone.

Anybody that did not support the call for a swift ceasefire must understand they bear some responsibility for what has happened, he continued. The draft put forth by Brazil contained no clear call for a ceasefire, he said, stressing the need to de-escalate the situation on the ground. It instead proposed humanitarian pauses and unhindered access to humanitarian workers, he said, adding that pauses will not stop the bloodshed; only a ceasefire will. Therefore, his delegation put forward amendments: the first is a new operative paragraph to unequivocally condemn the indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects in the Gaza Strip, including the 17October air strike on Al Ahli Arab Hospital and to condemn the imposition of the blockade. The second amendment adds a new operative paragraph calling for an immediate, sustained and respected humanitarian ceasefire. If these amendments are not included, it will not address the devastating situation; it will only exacerbate divisions within the Council, he said, urging members to vote in favour of the amendments.

Action on Amendments

The Council then failed to adopt the amendments adding a first new operative paragraph to the text, as it did not obtain the required number of votes.

It received 6votes in favour (Brazil, China, Gabon, Mozambique, Russian Federation, United Arab Emirates) to 1against (United States), with 8abstentions.

The Council then failed to adopt the amendments adding a second new operative paragraph to the text, as it did not obtain the required number of votes.

It received7votes in favour (Brazil, China,Gabon, Mozambique, Russian Federation, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates) to 1against (United States), with 7abstentions.

Statements

SRGIO FRANA DANESE (Brazil), Council President for October, speaking in his national capacity, said the organs members asked for his countrys leadership to facilitate a response to the crisis, in particular its humanitarian aspects. We heeded the call. In our view, the Council had to take action and do so very quickly, he said.Council paralysis in the face of the humanitarian crisis is not in the interests of the international community, he added. He said that his country had tried to build a unified position, its focus was on and remains on the critical situation on the ground, adding that humanitarian law and international law provided a clear path for the action. He said that the text condemned all acts of violence against civilians and called for hostages immediate release and for all parties to abide by international legal obligations, including the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, and stressed the urgent need for humanitarian access. It reflected the ethical necessity to provide for citizens in Gaza, including with electricity, food and medical supplies. The Council response we proposed was robust and balanced, he said. Sadly, very sadly, the Council was yet again unable to adopt a resolution on the conflict, he added, saying again silence prevailed to no ones long-term interest. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza cannot wait any longer, actually they have waited for far too long, to no avail.

Mr. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said: We have just been witnesses once again of the hypocrisy and double standards of our American colleagues. The United States really did not want to have any solution made before the Council and because of this they had to be very obvious about their intentions today, he added. Quoting Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Officer James Taiclets statement to United States media, he said: There's no point in restraining Israel from any military actions. What is the point in the future development of our military industrial complex, which will increase GDP [gross domestic product] by at least 2percent. There are conflicts which need to be resolved with arms and we are prepared to provide these arms, these weapons. That is the very essence of United States policy in the region and the Pacific region, he said, voicing hope that international partners after todays vote will have no illusions about that and what theyre intending whatsoever.

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD (United States) said that President Joseph R. Bidens trip to the region is a clear demonstration of the fact that the United States is actively engaging at the highest levels.She pointed out that her country is on the ground doing the hard work of diplomacy, emphasizing that, while she recognizes Brazils desire to move the draft resolution forward, the Council needs to let that diplomacy play out. Expressing disappointment that the draft did not mention Israels right to self-defence, she noted that, although Washington, D.C., was not able to support the text, it will continue to work on this pressing issue. When I talk about the protection of civilians, I mean all civilians, she stressed, highlighting that the United States is working to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Let us all call for the protection of civilians and unequivocally condemn Hamas, she stated, urging Member States to support equal measures of justice and freedom.

VANESSA FRAZIER (Malta) noted that her delegation voted in favour of the draft tabled by Brazil and abstained on the two amendments proposed by the Russian Federation. While her delegation had no issue with the latters substance, she said it saw no reason to alter a well-crafted resolution that rested on a delicate balance and sought Council unity on this matter. Expressing regret that the text was not adopted, she said her delegation remains concerned over the highly volatile situation in Israel and Gaza.The Council must therefore work towards constructive steps that prioritize the protection of civilians and prevent any regional conflagration. Stressing the importance of rapid, unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza, she urged the immediate establishment of humanitarian corridors.Further, she called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and comply with international law, also underlining the need for Council efforts to steadfastly align with a just, comprehensive resolution of the Middle East conflict.

ZHANG JUN (China), recalling his position articulated the night before last, said that his reaction today was one of shock. The draft proposed the night before last focused on civilian protection, to which some countries cast a negative vote, while others agreed to postpone action, leading his delegation to expect that they will vote in favour of todays text. However, he stressed: The final result is nothing short of unbelievable. He voiced disappointment that the amendments, which would have improved Brazils text, were rejected, stressing the need for the Council to take rapid action, in view of the rapid deterioration of the situation in Gaza, and the air strike on the hospital, which led to hundreds of civilian casualties.He condemned the air strike and urged Israel to abide by its obligations under international humanitarian law. The text put forth by Brazil reflects the general view of the international community and contained initial steps for a ceasefire, he said, stressing: The Council must not stand on its hands. With the escalation of violence in Gaza, civilians are paying the price with their lives, he said, calling for hostilities to cease and for the Council to play its role.

PEDRO COMISSRIO AFONSO (Mozambique) said his vote in favour of the resolution expressed his delegations concern with the outbreak of violence and deterioration of the situation in Gaza and the unfolding humanitarian crisis. We are deeply concerned about the human lives that are being lost on a daily basis since the conflict erupted, he said, adding that his delegation aligned itself with Council efforts to protect civilians and respect international human rights law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions.He called for humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, including the provision of essential goods and services and medical supplies. Ultimately, humanitarian problems need political solutions, he stressed, pointing out that this belief reflects his countrys own experience originating from its protracted struggle against colonialism, racism and apartheid in the Southern Africa region. In this context he urged all parties to stop attacks and engage in constructive dialogue, which is the only way to resolve the issues.

HAROLD ADLAI AGYEMAN (Ghana) said: The Council, as far as possible, should speak in one voice on this important dispute whose fault lines reach many distant parts of the world. His delegation voted in favour of that draft, but abstained from the draft proposed on 16October and amendments to todays resolution to preserve the broadest possible agreement that was found. Underscoring the Councils historic responsibility to deliver the two-State solution and preserve the lives of the two nations, he called on parties to de-escalate and seek consensus to support mediation efforts, and on those who can have a moderating influence on the parties to open up spaces for dialogue.

ISHIKANE KIMIHIRO (Japan) said his country voted for the resolution because it supports its main ideas, bearing in mind various perspectives, including the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Japan has unequivocally condemned the terror attacks by Hamas and others, and called for the immediate release of those who were kidnapped. At the same time, he pointed out that Japan had asked to delay the vote on this resolution proposed by Brazil, understanding that various countries, including the United States, have been carrying out diplomatic efforts on the ground to improve the situation as soon as possible. Japan expresses great regret that the resolution was brought to a vote today, nevertheless. Japan has consistently and strongly supported and put faith in diplomatic efforts by United States President Biden and other relevant countries. Japan will continue to work together with other countries to ensure the safety of civilians and realize an early de-escalation of the situation.

PASCALE CHRISTINE BAERISWYL (Switzerland), calling for an immediate release of hostages and rapid humanitarian access, said that the draft resolution met these priorities and aimed for the Councils common understanding. Underlining that, for this reason, she voted in favour of the text, she expressed regret that the 15-nation organ was unable to reach consensus on the draft resolution.

MICHEL XAVIER BIANG (Gabon) observed that this morning, the Council is seeing its credibility being put to the test. Rhetoric around the table provided no succour to the citizens of Gaza, and geopolitics have once again paralysed the organs ability to act. Noting that his delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution tabled by Brazil and the two amendments proposed, he said it did so out of the urgent, crucial need to act in the face of deadly violence that has caused immeasurable distress. He called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the opening of humanitarian corridors to alleviate the suffering of civilians. Further, hostages must be released with no conditions or blackmail.Again expressing regret that the Council was unable to overcome its differences, he underlined the need to find a solution to the situation in the Middle East the chronic nature of which questions the organs credibility and tarnishes its reputation.

BARBARA WOODWARD (United Kingdom) noted that the text rightly condemned the appalling attacks carried out by Hamas on 7October, stressed the importance of ensuring humanitarian access and protecting civilians, while emphasizing the Councils shared priority in preventing the regional escalation of the conflict. However, the text could have been clearer on Israels inherent right to self-defence, and it ignored the fact that innocent Palestinian civilians were being used as human shields. Therefore, her delegation abstained from voting on the text, she said, reiterating her countrys support for Israel in defending itself against Hamas, in taking back hostages and strengthening long-term security. She also called on Israel to avoid harming Palestinian civilians and act in line with international humanitarian law. As well, the United Kingdom will continue to work with partners to ensure civilians are protected and have access to food, water, medicine and shelter, she said, adding it will also continue to work towards the peace promised by the two-State solution.

HERNN PREZ LOOSE (Ecuador) said his country voted in favour of the resolution as it was the result of a constructive negotiating process. The Council cannot continue in silence in the face of events which are clearly a threat to international peace and security, and which are already having serious humanitarian consequences, he said. More so, the credibility of the Council depends on its decisions at times like this. Noting that his country abstained regarding the amendments since they were elements covered in the resolution, he underscored that this is not the end of his delegations efforts to ensure that the Council can act regarding this conflict. It remains, as it has been in the past, for the great Powers related to the conflict to be guided to seek solutions to establish constructive peace and not hamper possible agreements and understandings, he stressed.

FERIT HOXHA (Albania) said his country voted in favour of the resolution because it responded to core objectives on the issue and towards a coherent and principled position. Among others, the text strongly and unequivocally condemned Hamas and its indefensible terrorist attacks on Israel on 7October, called for the immediate release of hostages and provided for protection of civilians and the flow of humanitarian aid to all those in need. While his delegation supported the draft, it also reaffirms full support of Israel and its right to self-defence, like every other nation under attack, which the resolution falls short to mention, he said.

LANA ZAKI NUSSEIBEH (United Arab Emirates), recalling that, for more than 140years Al Ahli Arab Hospital has provided medical care and shelter for Gazans, added: Each passing hour of this ruinous war makes a mockery of the principles of international humanitarian law. Noting that Gaza is laid to waste, and nobody feels safe, she called for an investigation to this incident. She also reported that more Palestinians have died in this outbreak of violence than in any other in the history of the conflict, expressing her support for a no less than a humanitarian ceasefire. Stressing that Hamas is indeed responsible for sparking this latest fire that is now engulfing the streets of the capitals around the region, she stated: Make no mistake. The kindling was already there fuelled by decades of violent dehumanization. She emphasized that she voted for the draft resolution not because it is a perfect text, but because it states basic principles.Recalling that three years ago the United Arab Emirates established diplomatic relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords, she noted that, along with Israeli and United States partners, her Government thought a new middle East where coexistence and cooperation deliver prosperity, security and peace for all.

Read the rest here:
Security Council Fails to Adopt Resolution Calling for Humanitarian ... - United Nations