A/HRC/5/20 page 15 hospitalized in Israel and three in Egypt. Of course some of the victims of the attack were not among the dead or injured, for example, family members of those killed. For these individuals, the possibility of them leaving Gaza was extremely limited. It is fair to say, at this point, that the continued military occupation of Gaza itself was the greatest factor frustrating the Mission, preventing as it did victims of the Beit Hanoun incident from leaving the territory, and preventing the Mission from entering Gaza. Thus, to meet with and assess the situation of victims and to address the needs of survivors, the Mission had no choice but to travel to the occupied Palestinian territory of Gaza; d. Access to Gaza and to Beit Hanoun might have been possible via Egypt and the Rafah Crossing, thus obviating the need for official visas to enter Israel. The Mission investigated this possibility closely, and raised the issue with the Permanent Representatives of Egypt and Israel in Geneva, with United Nations actors in Gaza and with United Nations security officials. Ultimately the Mission reluctantly accepted that entry via the Rafah Crossing was not feasible for a number of reasons: i. First, the Rafah Crossing was only open to Palestinian trade and not pedestrians. Further, from the 1st of June 2006 until the 11th of December 2006, the Crossing had only opened 23 times, and in the month of November 2006 had only opened on 2 days; ii. Second, crossing at Rafah required the cooperation of Israeli authorities, which may not have been forthcoming in light of the statements to the Mission by the Permanent Representative of Israel mentioned earlier; iii. Third, at the time, the United Nations Department of Safety and Security did not authorize United Nations missions to make the crossing at Rafah for security reasons; iv. Finally, entering Gaza via Egypt would frustrate the Mission’s desire to meet with Israeli officials and organizations. e. The Permanent Representative of Israel proposed that myself and Archbishop Tutu enter Israel in our personal capacities rather than as members of a Mission constituted by the Human Rights Council. This proposal was immediately rejected for a number of reasons, principal among them being the following: i. First, it would have effectively denied the mandate of the Mission and the authority of this Council; ii. Second, it would not have guaranteed access to Beit Hanoun, as the cooperation of Israeli authorities would still be required to enter Gaza; and iii. Third, it would have denied access to Secretariat staff, whose crucial assistance to the Mission was mandated by the Council in its resolution.