Lebanon War Distortions

Study shows NGOs issued baseless, fabricated accusations against Israel.

BY: Abraham Bell, Gerald M. Steinberg

This summer marks the five-year anniversary of the Lebanon war between Israel and the Lebanese-Iranian terrorist organization Hezbollah. The Second Lebanon War traumatized Israel politically as well as militarily. Militarily, Israel failed to dislodge the terrorist organization from its southern Lebanese foothold; politically, Israeli leaders found themselves overwhelmed by a flood of false accusations of “war crimes,” “indiscriminate and disproportionate” force, and “violations of international law.”

International non-governmental organizations played a critical role in the political warfare against Israel. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International – ostensibly neutral watchdogs – led the campaign. In 35 days, they issued over 40 press releases, statements and pseudo fact-finding reports, comprising hundreds of pages, largely ignoring the war crimes committed by the terrorist organization and instead focusing overwhelmingly and negatively on alleged Israeli crimes.

The HRW and Amnesty allegations were immediately accepted, at face value, by the world’s media. Politicians and diplomats then echoed the war crimes accusations, without any fact-checking.

We are now completing a multi-year study of all the HRW and Amnesty allegations regarding the 2006 Lebanon war, and the results so far are shocking. In our systematic and detailed research, supported by the Israel Science Foundation, we found major contradictions as well as numerous unsupported charges, double standards and false or invented “evidence.”

In some reports, such as on incidents in the Shiite towns of Srifa and Qana - Hezbollah strongholds from which numerous rocket attacks were launched - the NGOs published wildly inconsistent civilian casualty claims within a few days of each other. Errors were overwhelmingly in one direction; almost without fail, errors consisted of exaggerated Lebanese casualties or unfounded accusations against Israel.

In many incidents, HRW and Amnesty reports initially relied both on Lebanese witnesses and the personal observations of its own “researchers” to deny any Hezbollah military presence in the area of an Israeli strike, while later publications acknowledged that Hezbollah had been present, meaning the witnesses had lied and the NGO researchers were incompetent. Regarding Srifa, even after reducing the number of reported Lebanese casualties from “at least 42” to 26 to 19 before finally settling on 22, HRW found itself forced by critics and the evidence to eventually acknowledge that most of the “civilian” casualties it had “documented” were, in fact, Hezbollah combatants.

Hold NGOs accountable

Indeed, in all of the incidents, the lack of reliable sources of information for the HRW and Amnesty accusations against Israel stands out. In each case, it is clear that when HRW and Amnesty issued their initial condemnations of Israel, usually within a few hours of the incident, the organizations had little or no information about the central issues of military necessity and the nature of casualties. And later reports with altered condemnations were based more on conjecture than substantive research.

The most blatant example was the incident in Qana, where Israel responded to heavy Hezbollah rocket attacks with an air raid. One of the buildings was hit and collapsed, causing a number of deaths and injuries. Within hours, HRW blasted a press release in which Executive Director Ken Roth claimed that the "Israeli military is treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone, relating to the strike on Qana, killing at least 54 civilians, more than half of them children." HRW then launched a campaign charging Israel with war crimes, with nine separate “reports” and op-eds, as well as press conferences.

HRW’s campaign was echoed in media headlines, creating intense international pressure, and leading Prime Minister Olmert to declare a “48-hour suspension of aerial activity pending an investigation...” A unilateral halt in military action due to unverified NGO allegations was unprecedented, allowed Hezbollah forces to regroup, prolonging the war, and probably costing many lives.

Yet, as our research reveals, HRW had no credible evidence for its claims. Roth, HRW researcher Lucy Mair (who had written propaganda for Electronic Intifada before joining HRW) and others far from the battleground, had inflated civilian casualty claims and erased the Hezbollah attacks that constituted the real war crimes as well as legal justification for Israeli actions. To create the façade of “fact finding”, the initial HRW statement referred to “researchers” in Lebanon, but they provided no names or means to verify HRW’s claims. Later reports either provided no sources or attributed allegations to “witnesses” who could well have been Hezbollah allies or operatives. The allegations that Israel had criminally and deliberately bombed Lebanese civilians were unsourced and false.

As the contradictions emerged, HRW’s Mair admitted that the Lebanese Red Cross had reported 28 dead, including Hezbollah “martyrs,” but HRW chose to continue its false accusations against Israel.

The catch-22 in which the NGOs placed Israel is illustrated by their “proof” that Israel knew that civilians were in the building, near the Hezbollah targets. On August 3, 2006, Amnesty International “proved” that an Israeli investigation showing that the Israeli military had not known of the civilians was a “whitewash” because “survivors of the attack … stated that they had been in the building for some two weeks and that their presence must have been known to Israeli forces.” On the same day, August 3, 2006, Human Rights Watch “proved” that the Israeli claim that the “civilians were not seen because they had been hiding in the building for some days” could not be believed because a “survivor” of the attack stated that the civilians only entered the building “around 6 pm on July 29,” i.e., only seven hours before the bombing.

Two opposite and contradictory accounts of the facts, but the same result: the NGOs pronounced that the facts prove Israeli guilt.

Sadly, observers - even Israeli officials - have tended to give the NGOs a free pass for their fabrications. And the model of making up the facts to “prove” an Israel guilt presumed from the start has been repeated in subsequent conflicts, most prominently by the Goldstone Mission’s now discredited 2009 report on the Gaza conflict.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claim to be promoting universal values by prosecuting their political war against the State of Israel. But justice will only truly be served when the NGOs are held accountable for their distortions.

Abraham Bell is professor of law at Bar Ilan University. Gerald Steinberg is professor of political studies at Bar Ilan University



Ynet News

Iran Fails to Get Seat on UN Women Board

'We have made no secret of our concern that Iran joining the board of would have been an inauspicious start,' US Ambassador Rice says. Specialist for Human Rights Watch group 'extremely relieved'.

Iran failed to secure a seat on a key board running the new UN super agency to improve women's rights as fierce lobbying by western nations and rights groups swayed an election Wednesday.

Saudi Arabia, whose candidacy was also criticized, got an automatic seat and rights groups said they will now seek to put the spotlight on the kingdom's record.

Iran was beaten to an Asian seat on the executive board by East Timor, a late entrant to the contest, in a vote at the UN General Assembly. Four UN agencies were merged this year to set up UN Women under the leadership of former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet.

Iran had originally been guaranteed a place as the Asia region had put forward 10 candidates for 10 seats. Iran and Pakistan were on the agreed list.

East Timor risked the wrath of its Asian neighbors by putting itself forward as a spoiler late last week, as controversy mounted over Iran's rights record, diplomats said. It won 36 votes against 19 for Iran.

The United States, European Union, Australia and Canada carried out an intensive diplomatic campaign to thwart Iran, diplomats said.

"It was an expression of disapproval of Iran's rights record," Norway's UN ambassador Morten Wetland told AFP, explaining his country's decision to back East Timor.

"They lost and they lost handily," commented US ambassador Susan Rice on Iran's defeat.

"We have made no secret of our concern that Iran joining the board of UN Women would have been an inauspicious start to that board," she told reporters.

'Shocking system of male guardianship'
Campaigners had highlighted Iran's treatment of women, including the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani who was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery. Though Iran has said this will not be carried out, reports say she could now be hanged after being found guilty of the murder of her husband.

"We are extremely relieved," said Philippe Bolopion, UN specialist for the Human Rights Watch group. "Iran has a catastrophic record on rights," he said.

"It is a country which has distinguished itself by actively repressing women's rights activists, they have harassed many and imprisoned some," he told AFP.

A resolution on Iran's human rights is to be voted at the UN General Assembly next week and is already the subject of intense new lobbying, diplomats said.

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi had said before the vote that having either Iran or Saudi Arabia on the board of UN Women would "a joke".

Ebadi said that Saudi Arabia's record on women is worse than Iran.

In Saudi Arabia women are forbidden to drive and cannot take major decisions without the permission of a male relative.

It secured an automatic seat from a group of donor countries for which there was no vote.

The US ambassador said that UN Women is "a vitally important institution", and questioned about the Saudi presence she added: "I am not going to deny that there were several countries that are going to join the board of UN Women that have less than stellar records on women's rights and indeed human rights."

The HRW specialist said that Saudi Arabia had "bought" a seat on the UN Women board.

"They have one of the worst records in the world when it comes to women's rights. But by being on the board they have essentially put the spotlight on their own record," said Bolopion.

"We want to use this spotlight to push them to start making some significant progress. By working to put an end to the shocking system of male guardianship, by which women in Saudi Arabia cannot make any important decisions in their lives," he said.




Ynet news

Shameful Double Standard

Abuses of non-Western regimes excused, democracies' sins magnified

by Frayda Leibtag

Human Rights Watch (HRW), one of the world's largest non-government organizations, is failing in its mandate to protect universal human rights. In closed societies where the organization's work is most needed, and where its work is most difficult to pursue, HRW repeatedly falls far short of fulfilling its mission.

The organization’s recent reports on migrant workers demonstrate these severe shortcomings. One report ('Walls at Every Turn') examined Kuwait, where migrant workers face serious abuse such as extortion and sexual exploitation. The other report ('Slow Reform' ) addressed the worldwide problem of violations against migrant workers, with an emphasis on Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. So far, so good.

But when HRW's researcher Bill Van Esveld chose to publish an op-ed on this important topic, his focus was on migrant workers in Israel. Instead of drawing attention to the problem of closed societies, which lack basic democratic mechanisms to address the mistreatment of migrants, and where international outcry may be the only publicity allotted to the victims, Van Esveld chose to highlight the one open country in the region that, in fact, has its own very public, vibrant debate on the most appropriate policies to implement regarding migrant workers.

This op-ed is indicative of how HRW's Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division downplays the systematic abuses of human rights taking place in closed, totalitarian regimes, while targeting open, democratic societies. This ideological double standard violates the universality of human rights and highlights the moral decomposition within HRW.

Other reports by HRW further demonstrate this troubling trend. A 35-page HRW report on a decade of human rights in Syria describes the state of Syrian human rights as 'bleak,' a categorization that does not do justice to the egregious violations committed at the highest institutional levels. The equally feeble 'recommendations' section adopts a bureaucratic approach, directed exclusively to President Bashar al-Assad. He is enjoined to enact, amend, introduce and remove a variety of laws; and to set up commissions. To alleviate restrictions on freedom of expression, HRW urges: 'stop blocking websites for their content.'

Similarly, in a recent report on Saudi Arabia, MENA overlooked the extent to which King Abdullah and the rest of the Saudi leadership are responsible for the very repressive practices that they are asked to counteract. The regime’s totalitarian grip on its citizens is minimized, with HRW naively turning to King Abdullah to enforce equal rights and freedoms.

Post-colonial ideology
This failure to properly address closed societies, and to focus primarily on democracies, led HRW founder Robert Bernstein to denounce the organization that he began. He explained in a New York Times op-ed (Oct. 2009) that HRW has 'cast aside its important distinction between open and closed societies' and has abandoned its 'original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters.' Van Esveld's article is another example.

There are a number of factors driving HRW's moral decline. First, HRW's leaders reflect a post-colonial ideology that patronizingly excuses the abuses of non-Western regimes and magnifies the alleged sins of democracies. HRW's lack of access to reliable information in closed societies also contributes to the agenda bias. But, instead of criticizing the potential harassment, or worse, for individuals who speak out against the regime, HRW echoes their silence.

In contrast, the open nature of democracies enables an obsessive, often aggressive stance regarding accusations of abuse in these nations. For instance, NGO Monitor's research has shown that HRW's ability to access every aspect of Israeli society feeds a hyper-critical approach to Israel and a loss of perspective and context.

The number and intensity of NGO reports and critiques of open societies should not be confused with the advancement of a universal human rights agenda. Saudi Arabia executes homosexuals, Iran stones adulterers, and Qatar discriminates against women, but HRW's MENA division persistently downplays these human rights violations. Now add to this list Kuwait's treatment of migrant workers. Without major reform of the MENA division, and a renewed commitment to seriously addressing the human rights abuses in closed societies, HRW will continue to lose credibility.




Ynew News

UNIFIL Helped Terrorists Flee IDF

New book published by Norwegian journalist says Norwegian soldiers dressed two Lebanese terrorists in UNIFIL uniform, helped them flee Israeli jail.

BERLIN – Norwegian troops helped two Lebanese terrorists arrested by the Israel Defense Forces to escape from Israeli jail, a Norwegian journalist claims in a new book.

The author, Odd Karsten Tveit, covered the Middle East for many years and served in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, whose members – according to the book "Goodbye Lebanon – Israel's First Defeat", helped the prisoners escape from the al-Khaim Prison in southern Lebanon.

The incident took place in 1992. According to the book, the Norwegian forces feared that two terrorist prisoners who managed to escape from the detention facility would be tortured or executed in Israel if caught by the IDF or South Lebanon Army, and decided to help them out.

Tveit says that the soldiers dressed the detainees in UNIFIL uniform and included them in a UN convoy which left southern Lebanon through roadblocks set up by the Israeli forces.

In interview to Norwegian media, Tveit noted that the incident was kept a secret for more than 18 years and that he was given permission to reveal its details only recently by Hagrup Haukland, the former commander of UNIFIL's Norwegian battalion, who made the decision to help the two prisoners.

According to Tveit, the UNIFIL headquarters and senior Norwegian army officials were not informed of the decision.

Norwegians accused of sheltering terrorists
The book states that one of the incidents which prompted Haukland to help the prisoners was when Moshe Tamir, one of IDF's top commanders in Lebanon, arrived at the UN camp and accused the Norwegian commander of sheltering terrorists after the two had escaped from the prison.

According to the book, immediately after the confrontation with Tamir, Haukland ordered his forces "to smuggle the two terrorists immediately" and decided to hide them in a bus used by Norwegian soldiers on leave.

"The Israelis did not suspect that the terrorists are hiding among our soldiers," the book says. When the bus arrived in Beirut, the two were free to go.

Norwegian daily Aftonposten reported that the two held a press conference in September 1992 and spoke about their escape, without revealing the help they had received from the Norwegian force. According to the report, the name of one of the prisoners was Daoud Faraj.



Ynet News

UN's Dream Became a Nightmare

Israel and the joke that called UN’s human rights body, composed of world’s worst human right violators

By Omer Gertel

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s worst human rights violators. It is not an electoral democracy and political opposition is forbidden. Freedom of speech is heavily restricted. The government maintains control of the media and responds harshly to criticism or deviation from its strict Islamic dogma.

Moreover, freedom of religion is nonexistent: All Saudis are required by law to be Muslim, while public practice of other religions is prohibited. Religious practices of Shiite and Sufi Muslims are also restricted. Arbitrary arrests and torture are not uncommon.

Discrimination against women is appalling: They may not drive cars, travel within or outside of the country without a male relative, or use public facilities freely in the presence of men. Employment rates of women are extremely low and their ability to take part in political life is minimal. The testimony of one man is equal to that of two women at the country's Sharia courts.

One might expect a body that calls itself "Human Rights Council" to devote a significant portion of its activity to criticism and condemnation of Saudi Arabia. But this is not the case. Not only has Saudi Arabia never been condemned by the UN Human Rights Council - it is a dignified member of this very body.

How can a country with virtually not connection to human rights be a member of a formal body dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights around the world? Is that not similar to putting a wife-beater in charge of a women's shelter? Welcome to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the most hypocritical and shameful body of an institution that knows a thing or two about hypocrisy and shame; a body that makes the UN more meaningless than ever.

Regrettably, Saudi Arabia is not an exception. The UNHRC is dominated by third world countries, in most of which democracy and human rights are nothing more than theoretical concepts. More than half of the Council's members are not free democracies; on top of Saudi Arabia, it includes some of the world’s most oppressive dictatorships, such as Libya, Qatar and China.

Naturally, a body with such composition does very little to promote or protect human rights, as this would damage its members' aspirations. What does it do then? Precisely what can be expected of a body with a significant proportion of Arab and Muslim countries – demonize Israel.

The Sri Lanka case
Incredibly, about 80%, 34 out of 40 of the Council's censures were devoted to Israel. This is an unbelievable figure: Meanwhile, tyrannies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China and others were never condemned by the UNHRC. North Korea, one of the darkest regimes of the 21st century, was condemned once. Sudan, where genocide has been committed for years, was addressed in two UNHRC resolutions, none of which held the Sudanese government accountable (one actually praised it for its "progress" on human rights.)

On the other hand, Israel, a democracy that grants freedom, civil rights and human rights to all of its citizens, including minorities that belong to a people with whom Israel is involved in bitter conflict – is supposedly the worst human rights violator on earth, and in fact one of the only human rights violators altogether. This according to the UN sponsored wife-beater's best judgment.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, recounts a story that demonstrates the typical hypocrisy of the UNHRC regarding Israel: During the first half of 2009, two countries, Israel and Sri Lanka, fought terrorist groups that target civilians and use them as human shields – Israel faced Hamas in Operation Cast Lead while Sri Lanka struggled with the Tamil Tigers. There were several differences between these similar cases: While Israel undertook extensive measures to prevent the harming of civilians, described by British Colonel Richard Kemp as unique in military history, Sri Lanka did no such thing. While Israel made humanitarian pauses every day, Sri Lanka failed to do so.

The civilian death toll in Gaza was approximately 1,000 according to Palestinian sources (and much lower according to Israeli sources), while the number of civilian casualties in Sri Lanka was no less than 6,500, and as high as 20,000 according to some estimates.

We all know what became of Israel in the UN Human Rights Council. A fact-finding mission, quickly established with the stated goal of investigating Israel's "war crimes" and "violations," confirmed all predetermined conclusions depicting Israel as the devil. Israel was severely condemned, as always.

But what of Sri Lanka? Did the UNHRC completely ignore the killing of thousands of civilians? Not at all. It shamelessly adopted a resolution written by Sri Lanka itself, praising Sri Lanka for promoting and protecting human rights. True story.

Help the world wake up
What is the conclusion of all this? First of all, reports by the UNHRC, like the Goldstone report or the Flotilla report, are entirely political and lack credibility or any factual, juridical or moral value. In fact, considering the council's well known politics, an intelligent person would need no evidence or knowledge whatsoever in order to perfectly predict the conclusions and verdict of a Council's report. The investigation's subject would be sufficient.

But this is hardly a secret in Israel. Israel refused to cooperate with the UNHRC "fact-finding" mission regarding the Gaza flotilla, and the formal Israeli response to its report concluded that it was "as biased and as one-sided as the body that has produced it." That is correct, but not enough.

While some of us might be familiar with the absurdity of the UNHRC's composition and resolutions, many view any UN body as neutral, making its resolutions and reports fair and meaningful. Hence, Israel should do everything in its power to delegitimize the UNHRC and expose it for what is truly is.

Official responses, which are usually published in the media worldwide, should be used for this purpose. Any Israeli response should not only justifiably accuse the UNHRC of political bias, but also refer to the tyrannies and human rights violators composing it, and mention the fact that the Council systematically and deliberately ignores human rights violations by the most repressive dictatorships, using Israel to divert focus from them.

It should be known everywhere, for the sake of Israel as well as of human rights, that the Human Rights Council is a sham.

Speaking at the UNHRC, Hillel Neuer described how “Eleanor Roosevelt's dream", which created the commission on human rights following World War II, turned into a nightmare. Israel must do everything it can in order to help the world wake up.

You Might Also Like:
The Broken UN Dream

Ynet News

The Broken UN Dream

UN committees where human right violators reign supreme have become a joke

By Yoaz Hendel

The new report by the UN Human Rights Council should be framed and posted in every political science class in the world: It would be an advanced lesson on diplomatic cynicism and the broken UN dream.

This time too, in line with the fine tradition of this Council, the probe against Israel was managed with predetermined conclusions and a mandate to find the Jewish state guilty at any price.

The documented evidence of Turkish violence, the serious injuries suffered by Navy commandoes, and the proof of preplanned provocation evaporated in the face of the “dozens of testimonies and inquiries” undertaken by the Council.

There are days where you wake up in the morning and tell yourself that we’ve had enough of the typical Jewish suspicion. The world has progressed, and it is more enlightened, open, media-covered, and critical towards itself; a world where every act of injustice is exposed and where it is no longer possible to rewrite history or conceal reality behind words and interests.

Yet then we see the progressive committees of the UN – an organization established in 1945 in order to make humanity’s future better. Every time, they again reveal to us that despite all we’re still stuck in the darkness of the Middle Ages: Justice on behalf of the wealthy, acts of injustice carried out behind the backs of self-righteous figures, and an organization that not only fails to bring any benefit, but often causes damage.

Paradox and parody
There are millions of people worldwide who need someone to speak out on their behalf and an organization that will guarantee their rights. However, when it comes to the UN, even if we ignore the fact that some of its committees grant Israel exclusive treatment, paradox (and parody) is the face of everything.

Here is a partial list of the dignified members of the UN Human Rights Council:

China
Nigeria
Madagascar
Algeria
Egypt
Malaysia
Libya
Qatar
Jordan
Indonesia
Pakistan
Malaysia
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Burkina Faso
Saudi Arabia
IRAN

As we know, these states show genuine concern for human rights in their own countries on a daily basis, so it’s hard not to be impressed by their concern for a single flotilla headed to the tranquil shores of Gaza.

By the way, a partial list of members in the UN committee on the status of women includes:

Saudi Arabia
Algeria
Egypt
Malaysia
Libya
Qatar

and the crown jewel –
IRAN

Where sinning women are stoned to death by law.

And these are the critics who issue verdicts against the democratic Israel, while the rest quietly ignore the distortions by the joke which they subsidize, in the process ignoring the poor souls of this world as well.

You Might Also Like:
UN's Dream Became a Nightmare



Ynet News

NPT nations: Israel must submit to inspection

Declaration proposing 2012 conference to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction across Middle East backed by 189 signatories of global anti-nuclear arms treaty. US 'deeply regrets' that Israel singled out in treaty text.
05.29.10, 08:30 / Israel News

The 189 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Friday adopted a detailed plan of small steps down a long road toward nuclear disarmament, which includes naming Israel as a state whose nuclear facilities must be placed under inspection.

The 28-page Final Declaration was approved by consensus on the last day of the month-long conference, convened every five years to review and advance the objectives of the 40-year-old NPT.

Under its action plan, the five recognized nuclear-weapon states – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China – commit to speed up arms reductions, take other steps to diminish the importance of atomic weapons, and report back on progress by 2014.

The final document also calls for convening a conference in 2012 "on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction." This Arab idea of a WMD-free zone is designed to pressureIsrael to give up its undeclared nuclear arsenal.

The declaration also calls on Israel to submit its nuclear facilities to inspection by the UN, a clause the US sought to avoid, but apparently withdrew objections in order to get the final draft approved.

The United States said on Friday it "deeply regrets" that the final declaration agreed by the 189 signatories of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty singles out Israel for not signing the pact.

US Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher told a treaty review conference that Washington would work with countries in region to organize a successful conference on creating a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

But she said the US ability to do that "has been seriously jeopardized because the final document (approved by treaty signatories) singles out Israel in the Middle East section, a fact that the United States deeply regrets."

Despite vocal dissent in the final hours from Iran and Syria, no objections were raised in the final session. Iran's chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh joined with the others in hearty applause in the soaring UN General Assembly hall.

"All eyes the world over are watching us," the conference president, Libran Cabactulan of the Philippines, said before gaveling the final document into the record.

The decision was "an important step forward towards the realization of the goals and objectives of the treaty," Egypt'sMaged Abedelaziz said afterward, speaking for the 118-nation Nonaligned Movement of mainly developing countries.

The conference is convened every five years to review and advance the objectives of the 40-year-old NPT, under which nations without nuclear weapons committed not to acquire them; those with them committed to move toward their elimination; and all endorsed everyone's right to develop peaceful nuclear energy.

The last NPT conference, in 2005, failed to adopt a consensus declaration, in part because US President George W. Bush had withdrawn US backing for such nonproliferation steps as ratifying the treaty banning all nuclear tests. President Barack Obama's support for an array of arms-control measures improved the cooperative atmosphere at the 2010 conference.

For the first time at an NPT review, the final declaration laid out complex action plans for all three of the treaty's "pillars" – nonproliferation, disarmament and peaceful nuclear energy.

The five recognized weapons states did manage to strip earlier drafts of specific timelines for disarmament negotiations, such as a proposal that they consult among themselves on how to disarm and report back to the 2015 conference, after which a high-level meeting would convene to negotiate a "roadmap" for abolishing nuclear weapons.

But in the final draft as adopted the five weapons states committed to "accelerate concrete progress" toward reducing their atomic weaponry, and to report on progress in 2014 in preparation for the 2015 NPT review session. The document calls on them also to reduce the role of nuclear arms in their military doctrines.

At odds over wording
The disarmament action plan inevitably leaves a major gap, since it doesn't obligate four nations that are not members of the treaty – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which have or are suspected of having nuclear arsenals.

On the Middle East, Arab states and Israel's allies had been at odds over wording in the plan to turn the region into a nuclear weapons-free zone.

In the final declaration, the NPT states call for convening a conference in 2012 "on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction."

This Arab idea of a WMD-free zone, meant to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared nuclear arsenal, was endorsed by the 1995 NPT conference but never acted on.

Israel has long said a full Arab-Israeli peace must precede such weapons bans. But at this conference the US, Israel's chief supporter, said it welcomed "practical measures" leading toward the goal of a nuke-free zone, and US diplomats discussed possibilities with Israel.

A sticking point had been a passage naming Israel, reaffirming "the importance of Israel's accession to the NPT," a move that would require it to destroy its estimated 80 or so nuclear warheads.

Iran demanded that this NPT session insist Israel join the treaty before a 2012 conference. Egypt's UN Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz told reporters the Arab position was softer – that Israel's accession to the treaty would come as "part of the process" begun in 2012.

Although the Israelis acquiesced to US urging that they take part in such a 2012 discussion, they objected to participating under terms in which they were the only nation mentioned in this way, diplomats said. In the end, however, the "Israel mention remained in the text.

Establishment of a verifiable Mideast nuclear weapons-free zone should help allay international concerns about whether Iran's ambitious nuclear program is aimed at building bombs, something Tehran denies. The Iranians have long expressed support for a nuke-free Mideast.

Whatever the result Friday, all-important details of a 2012 Mideast conference would remain to be worked out, such as whether the talks are meant as the start of formal negotiations on a treaty.

An Open Letter to The UN: