A/HRC/25/15 118. The President of the Human Rights Council recalled that it was the responsibility of the State under review to draw up a national report as a basis for discussion in the session of the Working Group. The publication of a national report as an official document of the United Nations did not imply any official position on the content of that report. 119. The State of Palestine made a point of order. It noted that the current meeting was the UPR of Israel and, as such, Israel should not be mentioning members of parties that had nothing to do with the questions on the table. It asked for a legal opinion on whether it was possible to engage with the United Nations mechanisms but cease to engage with the Human Rights Council. 120. The President said he had already addressed that question. 121. In response to Canada, the head of the delegation referred to affirmative action regarding the Arab minority, in particular an increase of directors in public companies, and the intention to increase annually the number of minority individuals employed in the civil service and as judges. 122. Addressing additional comments, the delegation indicated that the Gaza Strip had not been under Israeli control since 2005, following the implementation by Israel of the disengagement initiative. Since then, Israel could clearly be said to have no effective control in the Gaza Strip. Any claim to the contrary had clearly distorted and misapplied the established rules of international law. As a consequence, as had also been affirmed in 2007 by the Israeli High Court of Justice, Israel did not have a general duty to ensure the welfare of the population of the Gaza Strip. The obligations of Israel towards the Gaza Strip stemmed from the continuing state of armed conflict with the Hamas terrorist organization. 123. He stressed that the Hamas terrorist organization had violently seized control of the Gaza Strip, and had established a terrorist entity. Israel had hoped that the disengagement from Gaza would lead to a reduction in terrorist attacks and ultimately to a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians. However, attacks on Israeli civilians were still frequent. 124. The State of Palestine made a point of order. It refused to accept that Hamas or any other Palestinian faction be defined as terrorists. It suggested remaining focused on the UPR of the State under review. 125. Israel further noted that, due to the volatile security situation, and in the light of the obligations under international law, Israel had imposed a legal naval blockade to prevent weapons transfer to Hamas. 126. Cuba fully supported the point of order that had been made by the State of Palestine. 127. Israel asked for the practice of using points of order for issues that were not technical to be stopped. 128. The President of the Human Rights Council asked, in line with UPR modalities, that delegations refrain from interpreting the State under review. 129. The policy of Israel was that all goods could enter the Gaza Strip freely through the land passages that were open, with the sole exception of those goods that could pose a security risk to Israel. Israel had also allowed entry into its territory in humanitarian cases, such as for persons needing urgent medical care, and was very active in facilitating projects funded and implemented by the international community. 130. Mr. Nitzan responded to comments made by Denmark, France, Italy and others, noting that law enforcement against settlers’ violence was given special attention through a combined interministerial team for addressing incitement, uprisings and ideological crimes. In September 2012, the Minister of Public Security had announced the establishment of a 12