Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR)
20 August 1984



Introduction


1. The first International NGO meeting on the Question of Palestine took place at the Palais des Nations in Geneva from 20 to 22 August 1984 in accordance with the General Assembly resolution 38/58B of 13 December 1983. The meeting was attended by 94 NGOs, 6 NGO observers, 26 experts as well as by members and observers of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and other governments.

2. The following topics were considered by five panels established to look into various aspects of the central theme of the gathering, "The Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People":

(a) The Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People Under International Law: Activities of NGOs in Promoting the Awareness of Public Opinion of These Rights;

(b) Factors Determining Policy-Making in Europe: NGO Role in Influencing That Process with Regard to the Implementation of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People;

(c) Role of Religious Institutions in the Search for the Peaceful Solution to the Question of Palestine;

(d) Strategies for NGO Collaboration and Networking: NGOs' Participation in Providing the Support to the Just Cause of the Palestinian People;

(e) Paths to a Comprehensive, Just and Lasting Peace in the Middle East: Role of NGOs and Models for Action.

3. The opening session of the Meeting, on 20 August 1984, was addressed by His Excellency Ambassador Massamba Sarre who welcomed the participants on behalf of the Committee, expressing the hope that the meeting would contribute to a rapid, global, just and durable solution of the question of Palestine. He also spoke of the impact of the Meeting on the international public opinion.

Mr. Zehdi Labib Terzi, Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the united Nations,gave a brief account of the present state of the Palestine problem stressing that the just solution of the question of Palestine was the sine qua non condition for a comprehensive,just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He went on to highlight the role of "grass-roots" in the shaping of attitudes toward the destiny of the Palestinian people.

4. In the ensuing wide-ranging discussions the participants strongly endorsed the proposal for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations.

5. The Meeting concluded its deliberations by adopting a "Resolution of Non-Governmental Organizations" which was followed by a closing statement by His Excellency Ambassador Mohammed Farid Zarif. He, in particular, stressed that the Meeting adopted a set of important recommendations included in the final Resolution. Ambassador Zarif expressed the hope of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People that this series of meetings would become an annual feature attracting an ever-growing number of NGOs.


International Meeting of Non-governmental Organizations on the Question of Palestine

(Geneva, 20-22 August 1984)


Resolution of non-governmental organizations

1. We wish to thank the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights for making this meeting possible and without whose invaluable assistance our success would have been impaired.

2. As non-governmental organizations (NGOs) we are particularly grateful to the United Nations for the creation of an NGO liaison staff function and for the Provision of annual NGO meetings and symposia on the question of Palestine.

3. We consider that the meeting of so many non-governmental organizations as a consequence of United Nations resolution 38/58 C of 13 December 1983 is essential to the increase of international awareness of the question of Palestine.

4. We, the representatives of 98 NGOs represented at the International NGO meeting on the Question of Palestine, held from 20 to 22 August 1984 at the United stations Office at Geneva, call upon all the peoples and all the Governments to take definitive steps to secure a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the the-Israeli conflict, the core of which is the question of Palestine.

5. We wish to voice our support for the United Nations, especially its work to achieve a just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine through the implementation of all relevant United Nations resolutions.

6. We express our concern for the lack of protection of the Palestinian refugees through a United Nations agency, and urge the General Assembly to extend the mandate to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to include Palestinian refugees.

7. We reaffirm our support and our commitment to work for the implementation of the 1983 Geneva Declaration on Palestine and the Programme of Action for the Achievement of Palestinian Rights.

8. We decide to establish an interim Co-ordinating Committee on Palestine for NGOs as a positive development to further liaison between NGOs and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People through the Division for Palestinian Rights. The names of the organizations on the interim Co-ordinating Committee are attached. a/ We request the Committee to ensure that at next year's conference a session shall be devoted to enabling the NGOs to decide on the future structures for their co-operation with the Committee and the Division.

9. Since the United Nations has set aside 29 November each year as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, we call upon all NGOs express on that day, by all means available to them, solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for self-determination and statehood.

10. We call on the Committee through the Division to disseminate the publicity material, posters and information to all NGOs well in advance of 29 November to ensure that the preparation of our activities can be concluded by September each year.

11. Non-governmental organizations have decided to launch a campaign to collect signatures from the peoples of the world in support of an international peace conference on the Middle East, as called for by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine of August and September 1983 and as endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 38/58 C. It is essential that the conference be inclusive and be attended by the representatives of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, those Arab States parties to the conflict, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Just as General Assembly resolutions recognize the right of both peoples to self-determination and statehood, so now should the States Members of the General Assembly reiterate these principles as the basis for a negotiated peace under the auspices of the United Nations.

12. Non-governmental organizations accept responsibility to promote within their own countries support for this international conference and agree to raise this with their own Governments.

13. We call upon the Committee, through the Division, to assist the non-governmental organizations in this most important endeavour by providing administrative facilities and support in order to ensure the success of this petition, which will be launched on 29 November 1984 culminating on 29 November 1985 and then will be presented to all the parties involved.

14. We call upon the Committee through the Division to campaign actively in order to bring new organizations, especially from those areas of the world that were not represented at Geneva into the work of solidarity in support of the Palestinian people and into the family of NGOs.

15. We call upon the Committee, through the Division, further to strengthen the network of women working for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. We call for a wide exchange of information, including with the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization (General Union of Palestinian Women), with special focus on the situation of Palestinian women in preparation for the NGO forum in Nairobi in 1985.

16. We call upon the Committee, through the Division, to facilitate co-operation and co-ordination of NGOs on a regional basis. NGOs from the EEC region have envisaged during this conference an organization in the near future.

17. Non-governmental organizations regard as a priority the publication and early distribution of a comprehensive report including all the recommendations for action made by the panelists and the participants at the International NGO Meeting on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva from 20 to 22 August 1984, and we call upon the Committee, through the Division, to accept this responsibility. Such a report should be made available no later than 30 October 1984.

18. We call upon the Committee, through the Division, to provide the international NGO community with a clearinghouse for information on the question of Palestine.

19. We call upon the Committee, through the Division, to provide a comprehensive resource guide and directory of all NGOs working on this issue, including those hat have not participated in any United Nations activities.

20. We call upon the Committee, through the Division, to expand the bulletin of he United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights to include a regular section on GO activity and information.

21. We call upon the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable tights of the Palestinian People to convey the resolution and report of the International NGO Meeting on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva from 20 to :2 August 1984, to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session as part of the committee's report.


Notes



Ambassador Massamba Sarre


On behalf of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, I should like to welcome you to the first international meeting of non-governmental organizations on the question of Palestine organized under the auspices of the United Nations.

Exactly one year ago we were meeting here, all leanings mingling together in the framework of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, to ponder together in a responsible and objective manner on ways and means of finding a just and durable solution to the question of Palestine.

That Conference was a success largely because 104 non-governmental organizations attended and participated actively in it thus demonstrating that they can play a decisive role in the search for a solution to the question of Palestine.

The Committee can only express its satisfaction at today's meeting which is a supplement to the peace efforts of the United Nations. If we consider the impact that non-governmental organizations have on world public opinion i is not unreasonable to hope that a comprehensive, just and durable solution will very soon be found to this problem which concerns us to the highest degree.

I can even say that you add a-third dimension to the peace efforts in the Middle East, the other two being the relevant United Nations resolutions on the matter and the seminars which the Committee organizes in different parts of the world - the ninth, which was held in Tunis and was attended by African and European members of Parliament and experts, has just ended - seminars accompanied by round tables with the media of the various continents. It is now you who occupy [centre stage] to make your objective contribution to the peace effort for, unless a just and durable solution is found to this question, it may threaten international peace and security.

By coming to Geneva you have sought to translate the noble ideals of your organizations into action, in other words to establish a new international order based on justice, peace, understanding and entente between men and nations irrespective of ideology or belief. In short, you mean to rehabilitate mankind which is today struggling with contradictions that jeopardize its very existence.

Mankind now has enough on the material and technological level to live a better life for centuries to comes on the spiritual and human rights level we have put together principles which enable the individual to develop himself freely in justice, happiness and with dignity.

Implementation of all these considerations has given rise to contradictions as is most aptly demonstrated by the current situation in the Middle East and in Palestine. There is no need to go back over the events that led to this situation. You know the facts. What we need now is to create the conditions which will make it possible to implement the international and regional approaches which have emerged in recent years regarding the question of Palestine. The good thing about these approaches is that they take into account the aspirations of all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We must also make sure that reason prevails over passion and prejudice.

One year ago, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, meeting within these walls, was defining the modality for a just and durable settlement of this question and proposing that an International Peace Conference on the Middle East should be held so that genuine negotiations could begin between the parties concerned or interested in that conflict. The General Assembly adopted the proposal by an overwhelming majority in resolution 38/58 C. On that basis the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to whom we pay tribute for his dedication to the settlement of the Middle East cause, approached all the parties in order to implement that resolution. On the whole, his appeal was favourably received by members of the Security Council.

The only obstacle encountered to date are, on the one hand, the negative response of the Israeli Government and, on the other hand, the reservations of certain States interested in the conflict. it is highly desirable, in the interest of the right to existence and security of all States in the region that these obstacles be removed and that real negotiations begin without further delay under the auspices of the United Nations. The immobilism we are witnessing today can only lead to an intensification of the cycles of violence. We are stressing the need for negotiations to take place under the auspices of the United Nations because we believe that the United Nations has a particular responsibility in the Middle East-crisis and the question of Palestine. Indeed, the birth of the State of Israel and the legitimacy of the just claims of the Palestinian people regarding the creation of their own State, stem from General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. Moreover, the United Nations is the guarantor of international peace and security.

Political realities also compel us to appeal to the super-Powers to support the United Nations in its peace efforts. The settlement of the complex situation in the Middle East may be an important step towards East-West detente and the easing of other political, economic and social tensions in the world. This demonstrates the urgent necessity for putting an end to it. Recent objective studies have shown that a comprehensive, just and durable settlement to the question of the Middle East and of Palestine was the key to international detente.

I intentionally did not, on behalf of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, dwell on other equally important aspects of the Palestinian question (such as the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territories and elsewhere and assistance to the refugees) because I am convinced that you will give them the necessary attention. I stressed the political aspect because I remain convinced that the settlement of other aspects of the question of Palestine and of the Middle East hinge upon it.

I should like to thank you all, experts and non-governmental organization alike, for having been so good as to agree to participate in this constructive‘. work dedicated to peace rather than sterile confrontation. I am sure that the ideas which will be expressed during these meetings will contribute in large measure to restoring the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. They will also bring closer the dawn of an era of justice, peace, brotherhood and co-operation in the Middle East.

This meeting is not an end in itself but a response to the historic call for a meeting for, peace in the Middle East and in Palestine which the international community made in Geneva a year ago.

I wish you success in your efforts.



Zehdi Labib Terzi


Last year at this same time and place, the representatives of the "grass-roots", the NGOs, participated in a most active way in the International Conference on the Question of Palestine. In recognition of your efforts and in response to your request we meet here again. It is with great satisfaction we welcome you. We welcome you and invite you to pursue the course you have started on collectively last year, a course that contributes to the achievement of peace in the Middle East.

The search for peace has been the focus for many years. But for peace there are prerequisites. Peace cannot be attained in a vacuum. Peace will be through a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Palestine question is at the heart of the conflict.

Thus in endeavouring to attain peace and guarantee its viability it is imperative that endeavours must be directed at achieving a just solution to the question of Palestine. As a matter of fact, an international consensus of opinion emerged stressing this specific point. Namely, that the just solution if the question of Palestine is the sine qua non for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinian people, through its sole and legitimate representative, PLO, wishes to put on record its gratitude to the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and will appreciate it if you, Mr. Chairman, will convey its esteem and appreciation to each single member of your Committee.

Last week a number of distinguished persons, members of parliaments and other institutions in their respective countries, met at Tunis in a Seminar organized by the Committee. Chairman Arafat and Mr. Kaddoumi met with the distinguished persons who contributed to the success of the Seminar. Some of those who have contributed at Tunis, have also accepted an invitation to contribute in this Meeting. I am sure they will convey to you the excellent and highly valued results of their Seminar.

Chairman Arafat and Mr. Kaddoumi convey to you their best wishes on behalf of our Palestinian people and on behalf of our sole and legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization and its Executive Committee.

We wish to express our thanks and gratitude to the participants in this Meeting - to the distinguished members of the panel as well as to the distinguished representatives of the non-governmental organizations. The distinguished participants are knowledgeable about the plight of our Palestinian people and the endeavours of the United Nations in this matter of concern, particularly since 1975, when the United Nations Special Committee was established. But I shall take the liberty to address the specific item, "Paths to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East". In 1964, when the Palestine Liberation Organization was proclaimed, the Palestinian people hoped that the international community would respond to its appeals and that it would redress the injustice and bring to an end the misery and dispersion of its people. In 1968, we decided that, since such appeals went unheeded, we would exercise our right to struggle by all means, including armed struggle. This did find some response. It is really lamentable that much blood must be shed to awaken the conscience and arouse curiosity, interest, understanding and recognition of facts, culminating in identification and solidarity.

In 1974, Chairman Yasser Arafat appeared before the General Assembly offering two options: the olive branch and the gun of the freedom fighters. Since then PLO adheres firmly to both options.

Since 1976, PLO has welcomed and encouraged all endeavours by the different organs of the United Nations to achieve a settlement conducive to peace and guaranteeing the restoration and exercise of our inalienable rights. PLO has rejected all partial agreements as such agreements have ignored and even attempted to annul our rights and have only contributed to exacerbating of the situation, to the consolidation of the Israeli occupation of our homes, to the persistence of Israel in its policies and practices against our people and to further Israeli military adventurism and expansionism.

PLO saw a gleam of hope in the joint declaration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America in October 1977, but the Government of the United States of America reneged. Since 1976 the Government of the United States has wilfully obstructed all endeavours for a settlement under the aegis of the United Nations and precisely the Security Council. The Government of the United States has responded adamantly and in a very negative and destructive way against the call by the General Assembly to convene an international peace conference on the Middle East. The General Assembly has adopted such a call almost unanimously with the exception of the United States, Canada, Israel and a fourth Member. It has been stated that: "In the case of the liberation of Namibia, the United States finds itself a party to the delaying process". In the case of peace in the Middle East, the United States is the part obstructing peace and undermining all international efforts for peace.

We note with great satisfaction the inclusion of the item "Role of religious institutions in the search for a peaceful solution to the question of Palestine". We fully understand the real motives. Somehow, religion had been invoked and capitalized on. The Holy Scriptures are selectively quoted. Religion and beliefs and faiths have never been meant to serve one party, at the expense of another or others. We feel reassured that the panel will cover all the different viewpoints. A peaceful solution should be understood to mean a just solution.

In addressing the North American Symposium on the Question of Palestine, in June 1984, we expressed our confidence that the distinguished participants would use all their resources and endeavours to bring the United States in Line with the rest of the world. Isolationism in the sense of imposing a "pax americana" will not help to bring peace in the Middle East or justice to the Palestinian people.

The prime concern of this Meeting and your continuing efforts should focus on the fate and destiny of almost 5 million Palestinians and how to redress the injustices and visitations that have afflicted the lives.and well-being of the Palestinian people.

It is commonly known at the United Nations that, as early as 1948, the Government of the United States has called for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes. We appeal to you, the "grass-roots", to increase the awareness of the international community of the social and economic burdens of the Palestinian people as a result of the continued Israeli occupation and its persistent policy denying this fundamental right of the Palestinian to return to his home. We believe that you will use all your resources to increase the awareness of the need to facilitate and ensure the return of the Palestinians to their homes in Palestine, where they can live in peace.

Self-determination of peoples is an inalienable right. With the exception of the United States and Israel, the entire world community advocates and upholds this right for the Palestinian people and is endeavouring to find the means to guarantee the free expression and exercise of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people.

It is here that we feel that you can contribute to bring to the awareness of the American and Canadian peoples and their Governments in particular that the Palestinian people has the right to self-determination. You can participate in finding ways and means to make the exercise of this right one of the aims and policies of all Governments.

It is a common right of peoples to choose their representatives and the Palestinian people has already and unequivocally proclaimed that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is their sole and legitimate representative. We do understand that some Governments may have their own views on who should represent peoples, but regardless of these views, our people stand fast and united that the Palestine Liberation Organization is their representative. In 1974, the United Nations invited PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, the principal party to the question of Palestine, to participate in its work.

We welcome you here today as you do subscribe to the above aims of this Meeting, namely, to enable the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights, in its homeland, in Palestine.

In Geneva in the summer of 1983, the United Nations Conference adopted a programme of action for the achievement of Palestinian rights and in some detail what is suggested is that the non-governmental organizations intensify their efforts in every possible way. Such efforts are mentioned there in detail and we are certain that you will intensify your efforts, particularly in exchanges and other programmes of joint action with your Palestinian counterparts, be they in the occupied Palestinian territories or in the diaspora.

We further trust that your strategy for collaboration and networking will focus on your activities in your own countries.

It is through your direct involvement that you will definitely prove to be a factor among the factors determining policy-making in your respective countries. Some of you have come from countries members of regional intergovernmental institutions. The Governments of these countries meet and co-ordinate and determine policy-making. Will it be too much, if we ask you, the "grass-roots" representatives of non-governmental organizations, to get together, every once in a while, to discuss, co-ordinate and draw a co-ordinated strategy that will be reflected in the making of policies of your respective countries and the intergovernmental organizations they belong to.

We cannot but consider the economic aspects of United States-Israeli relations as well as the preferential treatment that Israel receives in the economic and commercial fields in EEC. I am sure you know that, by January 1985, the United States will import from Israel 2 billion dollars worth of Israeli products. That will be a direct result of the implementation of the free-trade-zone agreement. Some claim that this will not seriously endanger United States industry, or European trade. But let us think of another aspect. The racist white minority regime in South Africa has found in Israel an outlet through which to market its products in EEC and we also know that by providing this facility to Israel, the Israeli military industry will also profit and will increase marketing its products in some neighbouring countries in Central America and South America and other places. I leave it to your imagination to assess to what extent this will affect the economy of the United States and its work-force, its involvement in CIA and other operations, as well as the ensuing general impact on the rest of the world.

In the military field, the General Assembly last December had demanded particularly from the United States to refrain from taking any steps that would supplement Israel's war capability and consequently its aggressive acts whether in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or against countries in the region. In total disregard and contempt, the United States reviewed and developed its strategic agreement with Israel and as a matter of fact has initiated the implementation of such an agreement by conducting so-called medieval manoeuvres. In this context we are sure that you, the "grass-roots" will definitely have something to say to your own Governments about this involvement, after all, United States arsenals are all over Europe.

And finally, I must say that the time to act is now. We are confident that your final declaration will be a true reflection of your determination to contribute.

Let us not wait for the establishment of more Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian land. Let us not wait for the results of such policies - results that will be manifested in more repressive action by the Israeli Zionist forces of occupation - manifested in further stealing of irrigation waters, manifested in closing of schools, manifested in strangulation of Palestinian Arab towns and villages, manifested in the demolishing and desecration of religious shrines, and the consequences of such aggressions.

Let us not wait for another Sabra and Shatila, Ein El Helweh, not another Deir Yassin and Kafr Kassem - not another 1948, 1967 and 1982. Let us act now.



A. The Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian
People under International Law: Activities
of NGOs in Promoting the Awareness of
of Public Opinion of these Rights

Rachid Driss\

Mr. Chairman,

In paying tribute to you, I should like to say how much the International Studies Association of Tunisia appreciates my having been invited by the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights. One of the goals of the association is to participate in symposia or seminars both in Tunisia and abroad. Our magazine Etudes Internationales regularly publishes studies and commentaries on the question of Palestine, which is one of the most important - if not the most important - and interesting problems in the world.

I have taken an interest in it for many years, both before and after the war. As representative of Tunisia to the United Nations I consistently upheld the Palestinian cause whenever necessary, out of a sense of professional duty and out of conviction and, with the distinguished representative of PLO, Mr. Labib Terzi, I helped establish the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and had my country, a moderate Arab country, participate in it on behalf of the African Group, with the clear and precise aim of working to safeguard the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and achieving a balanced solution in the Middle East so as ensure peace and stability for our countries.

The Committee has come a long way since its establishment on 10 November 1975 (General Assembly resolution 3276 (XXX)). Its action is positive. The programme of action it has drawn up,-and the reports and studies it has had published have increased understanding of the Palestinian question. The fact that action has not yet resulted in the solution of the Palestinian problem does not diminish the effort made or the desire for justice and peace underlying that action.

Our meeting is one of a series of meetings that have been organized or that are planned in order to publicize the Palestinian problem, to disseminate the concept of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians and to help sensitize international public opinion.

This meeting, which has been organized pursuant to General Assembly resolution 38/58 B of 13 December 1983, underscores the effort made by the United Nations to increase awareness of the facts of a problem which continues to trouble the Organization and which to some extent threatens its stability in terms of the precarious and threatening situation in the Middle East. Indeed, following his recent journey to the Middle East, His Excellency Mr. Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General, acknowledged the gravity of the situation and the unforeseeable repercussions it might have. What better illustration could there be than the resistance to the Zionist occupation in Lebanon, the Iraq-ran war and the dangers encountered by international traffic in the Straits of Ormuz and, more recently, in the Gulf of Suez.

Sixty-four years have elapsed since the Balfour Declaration (2 November 1917), 34 years have elapsed since the resolution on partition (General Assembly resolution 181 (IV) of 29 November 1947) and 10 years have elapsed since Yasser Arafat visited the United Nations and the General Assembly adopted the resolution on inalienable rights (3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974). The region has been engulfed in a series of wars which have presented the world with a real threat: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1980. Can we, at this meeting of non-governmental organizations, discuss the problem of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians under international law - the wording of the topic for our discussion - as jurists, if we follow the example of the wise men of Byzantium. Did they not endeavour, in their philosophical discussions, to determine which came first - the chicken of the egg?

To speak of inalienable rights and international law means to define whether inalienable rights derive from international law or whether international law, one of whose constituent elements is custom, is not the later justification of those rights.. In order to grasp the problem more fully, it is necessary - since we must make a choice - to consider not only the egg; we must try to define and comment on the notion of "inalienable rights", to define the term "Palestinian people", which is supposed to benefit from these rights, and to consider the question of international law and international legality which stems from that law in order to take stock, subsequently, of the state of the Palestinian question and of the impasse it has reached and conclude on what I hope will be an optimistic note, despite all the past taboos and all the reasons for despair.

We believe that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people were set forth clearly in General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX). They are as follows:

1. The right to self-determination without external interference;

2. The right to national independence and sovereignty;

3. The right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted)

4. The right to participate in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. The right to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

These in brief are the inalienable rights which the Palestinian people should have. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was established the following year (on 10 November 1975) to implement those principles.

The Palestinian people who were to benefit from these rights were in the occupied territories, had taken refuge in neighbouring Arab countries or were scattered more or less all over the world. They were continuing a bitter difficult struggle which had already started in the days of the British mandate (1920 to 1948). Now it is more scattered than ever and suffers from Zionist colonization. It did not rest with the Arabs to decide that the Palestinian people was but one people without consideration as to race or religion.Zionism decided that it should not be. Israel was born of the notion that the Jewish people was a separate people and should have a State to itself. PLO had dreamed of a democratic State in which all Palestinians would be equal, without distinction, but it had to bow to reality. When Yasser Arafat addressed the United Nations General Assembly on 13 November 1974 and used the dual symbol of an olive branch and a gun, he was defending the Arab people of Palestine. The inalienable rights are therefore those of the Arab people of Palestine.

After 29 November 1947, and particularly after 14 May 1948, the separation of the two peoples was consummated. That separation was painful and it continues to have disastrous consequences, at least for the Arabs. On 5 August 1983 the media reported that in the Arab village of Oum Fahm, not far from Tel Aviv, Arabs and Israelis had demonstrated together against Meyer Kahane, the Zionist extremist member of Parliament, who wants to rid Israel of the last remaining Arabs. It is an encouraging sign of human intentions but it must not cause us to forget the harsh reality of the problems. We are all familiar with that reality. It is so obvious that we sometimes doubt what we hear or read in the news. We sometimes think that beyond the daily actions it is possible that secret efforts are being made to reach an accommodation to safeguard the future; then the curtain falls and it is yet another disappointment.

In a statement published in the newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique in July 1984 (pages 12-13) General Peled, an Israeli member of Parliament and President the Israel Council for Israeli Palestinian Peace (ICIPP), established in 1975, talked about the efforts that Committee had made and the contacts its leaders had with PLO, particularly the PLO representative Issam Sertaoui, in order to reach an agreement. He stated inter alias "But it soon became clear, during the contacts with the Government that the latter had resolved to pay no attention to that change and even to see it only as a tactical manoeuvre clearly designed to weaken Israel's position and to make it yield the territory it had won to an organization whose sole aim was the destruction of the State of Israel".

Israel, the product of the vision of Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), who wrote The Jewish State in 1895, and of the Hitlerian holocaust and the support of the United Nations in 1947, is occupying territory set aside for the Arab State of Palestine and is preventing the Palestinians from exercising their inalienable rights. Need we recall here that Golda Meir, at the height of her power in the 1970s, denied that the Palestinians even existed? Meir Kahane, on the other hand, recognizes that they exist but believes that they must be hounded out of their country.

The pro-Arab movements are weak as yet and the Knesset majority since the elections last 23 July is reinforcing the status quo. And yet, whether they are analyzed from the standpoint of the Palestinians' roots in Palestinian soil or held up against legal texts, the Palestinian rights are manifest rights and can be denied only by the insincere.

Let us leave aside the historical argument, which will take us back to the Philistines, the Canaanites, Abraham, our common ancestor, and even to Nebuchadnezzar where we will be lost in the Tower of Babylon.

The rights of the Palestinians are consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, which recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination (Chapter I, Article 1, para.2), and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees the right of return by stating in article 13, para.2: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country". Article 15, para.2, states that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality..." and, on the subject of property, article 17, para.2 states that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property".

These rights have been recognized and proclaimed not only by the General Assembly but also by various, political organizations and groups. The list of these bodies includes the League of Arab States, the European Economic Community, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and lesser groups. These rights are also recognized implicitly in the Camp David Accords of 17 September 1978 which provide for the participation, at a later stage, of representatives of the Palestinian people in negotiations on the future of the occupied territories and the settlement of the Palestinian question. In a speech made on 1 September 1982, President Reagan announced the beginning of a settlement of the problem on the basis of internal autonomy of the occupied Arab territories. He referred to the Camp David Accords which, he said, recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinians and acknowledged that the problem of the Palestinians was not just a problem of refugees, as suggested in Security Council resolution 242 (1967).

The Soviet Union, for its part, has gone beyond the stage of recognizing the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and supports the idea of convening an international conference on the question with the participation of all parties concerned, including PLO and Israel, the United States and the Soviet Union.

This idea, which was solemnly proposed by Brezhnev on 16 September 1982, and which the Soviet Union raised again at the end of July 1984 has been discussed at length by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and was the subject of a resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session (resolution 38/58 C of 13 December 1983). It concerns the method to be adopted in order to enable the Palestinian people to enjoy the rights of which it is being deprived. It does not have to be an international forum. That is a subject that deserves careful consideration. Let us confine ourselves for the moment to the question of inalienable rights under international law and let us adduce in support of the argument in favour of recognizing these rights the text of a document which has some importance, given the development in Israeli-Arab relations in Palestine. The text was given by General Peled in the above-mentioned article in Le Monde Diplomatique. It is the manifesto of the ICIPP Committee and contains 12 points. It recognizes the existence of two peoples, the co-existence of two States and looks ahead to negotiations with PLO. It is a platform which moderate Palestinians can accept since it recognizes their existence and their right to a State. It is consistent with the seventh principle set forth in the Final Declaration of the Twelfth Arab Summit held at Fez (6-9 September 1982), concerning "the establishment by the Security Council of guarantees of peace between all States of the region, including the independent Palestinian State".

It is also consistent with the Franco-Egyptian draft resolution of 29 July 1982, which, we are told, was endorsed by the PLO head and which inter alia calls for "the mutual and simultaneous recognition of the parties concerned". A basis of international legality, founded on international law, legal texts and political stands seems to be emerging in support of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Some of these texts lend themselves to differing interpretations regarding the area over which these rights should be exercised and by whom - according to the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine it is one area and cannot be divided (1920), - the Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised the Jewish people only a home not a State and it was stated that it must in no way prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. (General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and various resolutions.)

However the general trend - and the number of texts is increasing - is towards delimiting two zones, one of which could become - in accordance with International legality - the Palestinian State where the Palestinian people could at last exercise its inalienable rights.

This international legality is not new - it dates from General Assembly resolution 181 of 29 November 1947. At that time, relying on international law and on a legality which pre-dated that which the decision of the major Powers and force of arms was to impose, the Arabs, not without reason, refused to divide their country. Several decades have elapsed and the facts are now seen in a different light. Has the time come for an understanding between two peoples of Palestine, the Arabs and the Israelis who find themselves - the one driven by repression in the European countries, the other by self-defence - face to fact? Those who, whether in Israel or elsewhere, continue to deny the Palestinians their rights and to defy fate bear a heavy responsibility to the future. To continue establishing settlements, occupying Palestinian land on the left bank of the Jordan and in Gaza, relying on sheer force, applying the law of the jungle instead of respecting international law and international legality is to promote fanaticism and chaos in the Middle East and to jeopardize international peace and security. It is true that there are extremists and diehards on both sides but one cannot enjoin a man who has lost everything and who is wandering throughout the world unwanted and spurned, to De gentle and moderate, to consider the law and legality in his search for a little dignity. However, is not a Government that prides itself on being democratic and humanitarian duty-bound to behave in a responsible fashion?

And yet Israel chose to invade Lebanon in 1982, continues to occupy Lebanon and to refuse any preliminary solution to a problem, the Palestinian problem, which sooner or later it will have to deal with more urgently, more immediately, more irreversibly. The Israeli leaders continue refusing to recognize PLO not just because it is, as they claim, a terrorist organization but because they appear. to have no intention of respecting international law, of respecting international legality and acknowledging that the Palestinians have legitimate and inalienable rights. They are setting up new settlements at their expense and extending Israel's power) Greater Israel is indeed a goal which the Zionists are working towards resolutely.

The United States is giving them its unstinted support even though their policy is not necessarily endorsed by the United States Government as was made manifest by the strategic agreement signed between Israel and the United States in Washington in November 1983. The United States policy towards the Middle East has developed, at any rate since 1967 and the adoption of Security Council resolution 242 of 22 November 1967. In his address to the Foreign Policy Conference for Educators on 19 June 1967, President Johnson outlined five principles:

that the right of every nation to live must be recognized and that there must be justice for the refugees, innocent maritime passage, limitation of the destructive and costly arms race and political independence and territorial integrity for all.

The goal of United States policy, in my view, was to achieve a compromise that would guarantee, first and foremost, recognition of the State of Israel. The situation has evolved since then. Israel no longer seems content with the recognition of the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours. It seems, quite simply to be managing without it and, despite the Lebanese adventure is persisting with its national policy, hence the complete deadlock of the Palestinian question and the pessimism that prevails in the Middle East. Should one therefore lose all hope of seeing right - the best guarantee of international peace - triumph?

Everything inclines us to be pessimistic, even the nuclear threat which overshadows our futures. Authoritative sources claim that Israel has the capacity to manufacture an atomic bomb and to use it if necessary. The notion of right and legality is a totally relative concept. Right may be the expression of a de facto situation, for instance, partition which is legal, although at the start it was a breach of legality and of right. A united Palestinian State whose citizens had the same rights irrespective of their race or religion, would be a step towards progress and human understanding.

The Palestinians, in the pursuit of their fundamental and inalienable rights have agreed to the co-existence of two States. They refer, in their quest for such a solution, to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 333 (1973) reduce them to the state of refugees and cannot be the basis for a solution to their problem. The convening of an international conference is not in sight. The Security Council can always meet to consider the problem - under threat of a veto. What poor prospects for this just cause. The alternative is to fight - that inalienable right remains - the alternative is to hope for a change of heart - and we must all work to bring this change of heart about. That is what gives us hope: What reinforcement we may gain from hope If not what resolution from despair. (John Milton 1608-1674) The Palestinians are trying to find a reason for hitting. Mid-way between despair and hope.

As for us, it is our duty to give them support, if not out of a spirit of justice and solidarity, at least in order to safeguard ourselves from increasingly dangerous repercussions, from the wretched vicissitudes of a problem which has persisted for many years and which it is time - high time - to resolve by making the only possible compromise, namely, mutual recognition and real reconciliation in a noble vision of a common future.


Anis El-Oasim

INTRODUCTION


In this paper, I shall attempt to deal with some basic rights of the Palestinian people as affected by Israeli ideology, legislation and persistent practices from the angle of racial discrimination, in order to establish whether such ideology, legislation and consistent practices are racist in their nature and, if so, whether they constitute institutionalized racism.

My points of departure and reference will be the following:

(a) The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by' resolution 2106 A (XX) of 21 December 1965 and entered into force on 4 January 1969 to which Israel became a party in 1981. I have intentionally avoided any reference to the two Covenants, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Israel has signed but failed to ratify. I have also avoided reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that it does not form a part of the law of Israel and I have also avoided reference to the Geneva Conventions because of the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court that, although Israel became a party to them, yet they were not a part of the laws of Israel because of the failure of the Government of Israel to pass the necessary enabling legislation, which makes a mockery of acceding to international conventions. Thus I am limiting myself to the international convention to which Israel has voluntarily become a party and which it implements through the submission of annual reports to the international committee established under the Convention.

(b) The two basic resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations dealing with the future of Palestine and its people, namely resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 and resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948; the first was the resolution which partitioned Palestine and was concerned with the question of the division of the territory between an Arab and a Jewish State, the City of Jerusalem, the Holy Places and minority rights of Arabs in the Jewish State and of Jews in the Arab State. The second resolution concerned the repatriation of Palestinian refugees or payment of compensation to those who did not wish to return. Those two basic resolutions were solemnly accepted by Israel in official declarations and explanations submitted by Israel on the establishment of the State of Israel and on its admission as a Member of the United Nations. The same resolutions were accepted, indeed strenuously lobbied for by the United States Government, and are affirmed year after year by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Here again, I have abstained from any reference to other resolutions which were not approved by both Israel and the United States and resolutions, such as Security Council resolution 242 (1967) which was not directly concerned with the Palestine problem, and which do not stand on the same level of importance with the two aforementioned resolutions. In this connection, it is important to recall that Israel's declarations and undertakings in pursuance of these resolutions were unconditional, i.e., they were not made conditional upon acceptance of the resolutions by the Palestinian Arabs. Indeed, they were made after the rejection of the partition plan was well known and well established. The first Israeli declaration to the United Nations, as required by the partition resolution, was made on 15 May 1948 after resistance to the partition plan had led to armed conflict in Palestine, and the second declaration was made on the occasion of the admission of Israel to membership of the United Nations on 11 May 1949, after the armed conflict had reached new dimensions and after the refugee problem had become a devastating reality. Thus, the nature and extent of the problems as well as the nature and requirements for their solution were well recognized and formally accepted through official and solemn undertakings by Israel to the international community;

(c) The ideology of Israel and its establishment had remained unchanged since the creation of Israel and has not been in any serious manner affected by who is in power. They call it zionism without any distinction between the various brands of zionism on the spiritual and political levels. Thus when I talk about zionism, I should be understood as talking about that ideology which has been the guiding force in the mainstream of the political life in Israel. The basic constituents of this ideology, as put into practice, have not changed since the creation of Israel and on them there is no difference between the Labour and the Likud parties. Therefore we have persistent policies and practices whose basic inspiring ideology is the same although the pace and tactics may differ.


I. The Convention


As my first reference point, I mentioned the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965 because it is very important to emphasize that the term "racial discrimination", when used responsibly, is used as a term of art with an internationally recognized definition. Both the definition and the criteria are not subjective, but set out in an international convention which has received the widest ratification and acceptance by the international community. Up to April 1984, the number of States which had ratified or acceded to the Convention is 122. No other human rights convention can boast of such a figure.

Paragraph (1) of article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination", as used in the Convention, to mean:

"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

Thus this definition was in existence and formed a part of international law ten years before General Assembly resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975 determining "that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" and it is to the definition in the International Convention as well as to the judgement of the International Military Tribunal of Nürnburg that one should appeal in order to establish whether the determination by the General Assembly was correct or not by testing against it the ideology, legislation, policies and activities of Israel as a zionist State.

In article 2 of the Convention, States parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races. To that end, States parties have undertaken definite commitments, some of which should be mentioned in detail because of their direct relevance to the subject under discussion:

(a) Each State party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;

(b) Each State party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any person or organizations;

(c) Each State party shall take effective measures to review governmental national and local policies and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;

(d) Each State party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organizations;

(e) Each State party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.

Under article 4 of the Convention, States parties undertook to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority as well as the provision of any assistance to racist activities; and to prohibit and declare illegal organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination. Article 5 selects certain civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for special attention, including the right to freedom of movement, the right to leave and to return to one's country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of thought and opinion, the right to form and join trade unions and the right to education and training.


II. Israeli United Nations undertakings


These are some of the main substantive provisions of the Convention to which Israel is a party. Apart from the Convention and back in 1948 and 1949 on the creation of Israel and before its admission to the United Nations, Israel made the declaration required under resolution 181(II) which is the basis of any legality for the existence of Israel. Section C of part I of that resolution made it obligatory on the provision Governments of the proposed Arab and Jewish States to make a declaration before independence containing certain clauses set out in that section. A general provision of the section declared:

"The stipulations contained in the declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them."

In other words, the sovereignty of the proposed two States was restricted to the extent stated in the Declaration. On 15 May 1948 the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government of Israel addressed a cablegramme to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in which he stated, inter alia,:

"I beg to declare on behalf of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel its readiness to sign the Declaration and Undertaking provided for respectively in part one C and part one D of the resolution of the General Assembly."

The United Nations, in adopting the partition plan, were extremely anxious to guarantee the safety of the holy places and accessibility thereto and the rights of the minorities in each State and wanted to ensure that neither of the two States would rely on the defence of sovereignty in dealing with the matters governed by the stipulations provided for in the declaration. Consequently and before admission to the United Nations, Israel declared to the United Nations that it would not invoke article 2 (7) of the Charter, which relates to domestic jurisdiction.


III. The Israeli Nationality Law


It should be recalled that the matters covered by the declaration and undertaking were extremely vital because of the consequences of the partition plan and the possibility of discrimination against the minority in each State. The importance of these guarantees, which were made under the protection of the United Nations, can be gathered from the fact that, under the partition plan, the proposed Jewish State would have a population consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews according to the statistics available to the United Nations at the time. As noted by an authority on the subject:

"the territory which was earmarked for the Jewish State by the resolution of 29 November 1947 was just as much allocated to the 509,780 Palestinian Arabs as it was allocated to the 499,020 Jews who were then the inhabitants of such territory. However, Israel has acted as if the United Nations has granted to the Jewish inhabitants alone the territory of the proposed Jewish State and reserved such territory for their exclusive use and occupation."1/

Paragraph 2 of chapter 2 of section C of part I of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 provides:

"no discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex."

Chapter 3 of the same section C was very careful to deal with the question of citizenship. Paragraph 1 provides as follows:

"Palestine citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."

It should be noted that, regarding this question of citizenship, an Arab or a Jew would, on recognition of independence, become automatically a citizen of the State in which he was a resident even though he might not have been a holder of Palestinian citizenship. Thus the Israeli Law of Return of 1950 and the Israeli Nationality Law of 1952 which gave only to Jews who were in the country before the establishment of the State the automatic right to nationality while denying the same right to the Arabs who were also resident in the country before the establishment of the State are clearly in contravention of the above provision and are both illegal and unconstitutional - illegal because of the racist nature in accordance with the principles laid down by the Nurenberg Tribunal and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination referred to above and unconstitutional because they contravene the general provision of section C of part I of resolution 181 (II) which made the stipulations of that section, including the provision regarding citizenship, a fundamental law for both the Jewish and the Arab States.

Under the Israeli Nationality Law all that is required of a Jew to become a citizen of the State is that he must have immigrated to the country before or after the establishment of the State. However, an Arab in his homeland is deemed to be stateless and is destined to remain stateless unless he meets four conditions, some of which are beyond his control. They are:

(a) He must prove that he is a Palestinian citizen. This is not required of a Jew who immigrated to Palestine during the United Kingdom Mandate. With the surrender of the Mandate on 15 May 1948 by the United Kingdom, the Government of Palestine disappeared and there was no authority which could give a certificate of citizenship. In almost every country in the world most nationals do not care to have a certificate of citizenship unless it is specifically wanted for a specific purpose. The Arab population of Palestine was no exception to this rule. Most people did not have such certificates. Only those who travelled abroad, and they were comparatively few, had passports indicative of their nationality. It is for this reason, in addition to the principle involved, that the citizenship provision of the protected section C, part I, of resolution 181 (II) of 1947 provided for automatic citizenship' for Arabs and Jews residents in Palestine regardless of whether they had Palestinian citizenship or not;

(b) He must have registered on March 1952 as an inhabitant under the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance, 1949. Commenting on this requirement, the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights said:

"Since many of the Arab inhabitants of Israel were not registered as inhabitants during the first years of the existence of the State, in particular owing to the intentional difficulties caused by the military administration, this fact alone already deprives them for ever of the fundamental right to citizenship." 2/

It is unthinkable that one's citizenship in his homeland should depend on a census registration. Moreover, all the refugees whose right to the citizenship of the Jewish State, envisaged by the partition plan, and which was solemnly accepted by Israel in its declaration and undertaking to the United Nations, are deprived of that right by this requirement of registration. They were denied by Israel the right to return and, because they were not registered inhabitants on the said date, they were deprived of their citizenship right. In Israeli legalistic terminology, these refugees are "absentees" whose property was expropriated, again because of their "absence";

(c) He was an inhabitant of Israel on the day of coming into force of the Nationality Law, which, was under article 19(a) of the Law, 14 July 1952;

(d) He was in Israel, or in an area which became Israeli territory after the establishment of the State, from the date of the establishment of the State to the day of the coming into force of the Law, or entered Israel legally during that period. Thus, as commented by the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, absence of one day could easily deprive a Palestinian Arab of his right to citizenship. 2/ In an article entitled 'Everyone has the right to a nationality', (see article 15/1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), Mordechai Avi-Shaul commented on the effect of Israeli Nationality Law as follows:

"Israel is ruling tens of thousands of Arab inhabitants who have not become Israeli nationals. Their number is unknown. No official figures are available. The Minister of Interior is all-powerful. If he so wills, he grants; if he so wills, he revokes; if he so wills, he sustains. As a Ha'aretz editorial noted in 1952, We have learned well the art of trimming minority rights and we should have no pride over the agile perception we have demonstrated in this domain!" 4/

The Israeli Nationality Law avoided the use of the word"Arab"in any of its provisions in order to give the appearance of general application and to avoid the charge of racial discrimination. However, racial discrimination is not a question of form only; it is a question of substance and effect. That is why the definition of racial discrimination, as set out in article 1(1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination specified that the racist act must have "the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms". The purpose and effect of the Israeli Nationality Law was to give a distinction and a preference (both of which are prohibited under the Convention) to Jews who were residents of the State on its establishment as against the Arab residents, both of whom were guaranteed equal recognition and enjoyment of their citizenship right.

Under article 2 of the Convention, each State party undertakes to "take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists". In compliance with its solemn international undertakings and commitments, Israel should rescind the Nationality Law and enact a law which is not tainted by racial discrimination and which would give full effect to the declaration it solemnly signed with the United Nations recognizing equal citizenship rights for all Arabs and Jews who were residents in the part of Palestine allocated to the Jewish State. In this way, a part of the refugee problem would be on the correct legal way to a final solution. Those refugees who were residents on 29 November 1947 in the area allocated to the Jewish State should be deemed and recognized by Israel as Israeli citizens and by the United Nations as well in pursuance of section C of resolution 181 (II) and Israel's undertakings there­under. A person's absence from his country because of force majeure circumstances, such as the outbreak of hostilities, would not deprive him of his residence, and the Palestinian refugees have all the years effectively demonstrated their readiness and determination to return to their country. It is Israel which is not allowing them to do so. It is for the refugees themselves, if they so wish, to surrender the citizenship guaranteed to them and not for Israel to deprive them of it, deny it to them or force a permanent form of exile on them.


IV. Social benefits

Another example of Israeli attempts to camouflage the racist nature of Israel's political ideology, zionism and its racist policies can be found in the field of social legislation. The underlying philosophy, which is racist in its nature, of such legislation is to deny, as far as possible, families of Israeli Arab citizens the social benefits which should be provided by the State. An insight into this racist attitude can be found in a direct statement by Ben-Gurion, the real founder of Israel and its first Prime Minister. Ben-Gurion was, of course, the leader.of the Labour Party, which, in view of its actual policies, is a committed national socialist party with no place in the Socialist International.

In order to cope with the problem of the gap between Jewish and Arab rates of natural increase, Ben-Gurion had this to say:

"...since the problem of the birth rate does not affect all the inhabitants but only the Jewish community, it cannot be solved by the Government. Israel provides (sic) equal rights for all its citizens without distinction of race and nationality. Consequently if the Government plans to increase birth rate by providing special assistance to large families, the main beneficiaries will be Arab families, which are generally larger than Jewish families. Since it is only the Jews who need such incentives, the Government is unable to deal with the problem and the matter should be transferred to the Jewish Agency or some special Jewish organization." 5/

We shall deal later with the use of so-called "non-governmental" organizations by Israel in order to implement its racist ideology and policies and to avoid the charge of racism. In the field of social insurance, the idea of utilizing the Jewish Agency was discarded because of implementation difficulties. 6/ Therefore, an amendment was introduced in 1970 to the Discharged Soldiers (Reinstatement in Employment) Law. The law itself looks innocent enough, for who would not like to help discharged soldiers. However, an amendment to the law gave the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, the power to make regulations providing for the payment of grants to soldiers or to members of their families or to specific groups of them in such a way, under such conditions and in such amounts as he might decided in the light of their financial or family situation. The amendment also authorized the Minister of Labour to empower the National Insurance Organization or any other body approved by the Knesset Finance Committee to pay the aforesaid grant. As a result of the definition of the term "soldier", in practice 99 per cent of the Jewish population of Israel received the increased subsidies. However, the Arab population did not receive these subsidies in spite of the fact that Arabs pay taxes and insurance contributions exactly like Jews.

It should be remembered, in order to understand the racist nature of this legislation, that most Arabs do not serve in the Israeli armed forces; they are not conscripted, nor are they permitted to volunteer for service. Only Druze and Circassian communities (which constitute only 7 per cent of the total non Jewish population in Israel) have been subject to conscription. Thus the whole purpose of the exercise is to give substantial preference to members of the Jewish community. There is nothing more telling on this point than the treatment of those Jews who are exempt from army service. Under the law, like the Arabs, they should be ineligible for the higher payment. However, the law was not allowed to take its course, and these Jews receive compensatory payments from a special fund under the control of the Ministry of Religion.

The result of this glaring racial discrimination is that "although all children in large families are eligible for allowances from the National Insurance Institute, those whose parents, grandparents or brothers served in the Israeli Defence Forces receive 40 per cent more". 7/

The "soldier" mechanism has been used very widely in Israel as the instrument of racial discrimination against Israeli Arabs. "The possession of veteran status is a prerequisite to a wide variety of jobs and assistance programmes." 8/ Arab students are finding it more and more difficult to join Hebrew universities, the only universities effectively allowed in Israel, because of the prerequisite of previous army service, and the Israeli Council for Higher Education, with the approval of the Ministry of Education has, in 1981, refused permission to establish the Arab University of Galilee under the pretext that there was no need for more universities in the country. Ha'aretz of 5 July 1984 published a statement distributed by the Arab Students Association condemning the Law of Discharged Soldiers which was passed by the Knesset the previous week and which granted special privileges to soldiers discharged from the Israeli army. "The law", said the statement, "will constitute fertile soil for the development of institutionalized racism that will penetrate all fields of life: Jewish students will be preferred over Arab students for entrance to higher educational institutions and also will enjoy scholarships, grants and university services on a much broader scale than their Arab student colleagues. All through the excuse of military service"..

As we have already noted,Israeli law prohibits Palestinians from the draft, and yet punishes them in their livelihood, their jobs, their education and opportunities for work because they were not in the armed forces. Here we have the same story once more in a different field. The refugees are denied the right of return, therefore they are treated as "absentees" in order to justify the expropriation of their property. The Israeli Arabs are prohibited from joining the armed forces, and their failure to be such members is used as the justification for racial discrimination on a very wide scale.


V. The question of land

So far, this paper has dealt, in brief, with two examples of Israeli institutionalized racism against the Palestinians, even those who are Israeli citizens, namely the Nationality Law and the various legislation affecting social benefits. Those two examples cover most of the spectrum of civil, political and social rights. I move now to refer to another form of institutionalized racism which is also of a very far-reaching effect, namely the question of land. 9/ 10/

Some basic figures will be helpful in this discussion. Before the United Kingdom decided to relinquish its mandate over Palestine, the United Kingdom and the United States Governments agreed on the setting up of the Anglo- American Committee of Inquiry in 1946. The mandatory Government, the United Kingdom, prepared for the Committee the "Survey of Palestine" which showed that the total Jewish land ownership represented only 6.03 per cent of the total land area of Palestine. According to the most optimistic figures given by the Jewish Agency, the figure was 6.59 per cent.

The partition plan adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 181(11) of 29 November 1947 allocated to the Jewish State 56 per cent of the land area of Palestine and Israel ended, before 1967, occupying 77 per cent of the land of Palestine. However, as noted above, this allocation was based on the declaration and undertaking signed by Israel with the United Nations regarding the protection of minority rights, including the right to property and the right to citizenship, all to be enjoyed without discrimination as to race, national or ethnic origin.

However, let us look at the record. According to Don Peretz,

"The first authoritative statement of policy on Arab property from the Provisional Government of Israel was the Abandoned Areas Ordinance published in the Official Gazette on June 30th 1948. It defined an 'abandoned' area.as any place conquered by or surrendered to, the armed forces of Israeli or deserted by all or part of the inhabitants. The Provisional Government was given authority to declare any place an 'abandoned' area." 11/

Again, according to Don Peretz,

"The relationship of Arabs to their property was somewhat clarified in December 1948, when the Provisional Government published its first Absentee Property Regulations...In effect they prevented the return of any Arabs, including those who were citizens of Israel, to property abandoned during, or immediately before, the war."

The "firsts" were the prelude to numerous legislative measures regarding the seizure of Arab property in Israel which ended by, so far, vesting 92 per cent of the land area of pre-1967 Israel in the State and the Jewish National Fund. In this paper we shall not attempt to follow all the legislative and administrative actions of Israel to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs of their property. However, it is relevant to remark, at this stage, that the first two actions of the Israeli Government reflect its ideology and its implementation. According to these legislative measures, the term "abandoned" property was not used to cover only property which has been actually abandoned in the normal use of the term. On the contrary, it included any place which has been conquered by, or surrendered to, the armed forces of Israel or deserted by all or part of its inhabitants. Thus, if one family, or indeed one person, has deserted his town or village, the whole town or village could be considered as abandoned. Indeed, there is no need to leave the property, the village or town. It is enough to treat them as abandoned if they have been conquered by or even surrendered to the armed forces of Israel. It is the grossest misrepresentation to describe such property as abandoned, particularly when the second action of the Israeli Government to "clarify" the relationship of the Palestinian Arab to his "abandoned" property was designed to prevent his return to his property. These are legislative acts which are in gross violation of established principle of domestic and international law. Even if all Palestinians are to be treated as enemy subject, the rule of international law is clear. Oppenheim states the rule as follows:

Immovable private enemy property may under no circumstances or conditions be appropriated by an invading belligerent. Should he confiscate and sell private land or buildings, the buyer would acquire no right whatever to the property. " 13/

Nazi German acts of plunder or private property in occupied territory during the Second World War were condemned as a war crime by the International Military Tribunal at Nurenberg. When directed against a specific national or ethnic group, such acts become not only war crimes but also crimes against humanity for which the Nazi leaders were convicted. Thus the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland is not a novel idea advocated by Rabbi Kahane but has its legislative expression as early as December 1942 under the Provisional Government.

It is important to remember that it was and still is through legislative acts, for which the Israeli Government is responsible, that the property of the Palestinian Arabs, whether they are "absentees" or "present absentees" (a term used to refer to those Israeli Arabs who were in Israel but were, nevertheless treated as absentees), was seized, and placed at the exclusive use and occupation of the Jewish community to the permanent exclusion of the Arab community.

It may be argued that a State may nationalize private property. However, if such nationalization is directed against a specific national or ethnic group, such nationalization would be racist. Moreover, the object of nationalization is to put the property for the benefit of the whole community. Expropriation of private property is known in all domestic jurisdictions. However, the purpose of such expropriation is to construct roads, hospitals, schools, public gardens, etc. for the benefit of the community at large and not to deny them even by law to a specified section of the community on a racist basis.

The property expropriated by Israel was put and is still put at the exclusive use of the Jewish community alone. I have mentioned that 92 per cent of the land in Israel is now vested in the State and the Jewish National Fund. I have already referred to Ben-Gurion's statement regarding the possible utilization of the Jewish Agency in connection with family benefits. The Jewish Agency as well as the Jewish National Fund, which are officially designated as non-governmental organizations, are used as instruments of institutionalized discrimination by the State itself. Commenting on the rule of such agencies, Lustick had the following to say:

"What should be emphasized is that the existence of separate, Jewish institutions such as JNF and the Jewish Agency, controlling as they do vast resources and not including Arabs in the purview of their activities, enables the (Israeli) Government to use the legal system to transfer resources from the public domain to the Jewish sector. It does this without discriminating in the law between Jews and Arabs but by assigning responsibility for the disposition of those resources (especially land and funds from abroad) to institutions which are historical creations of the Zionist movement with personnel imbued with the desire to consolidate and strengthen the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael." 14/

What Lustick missed in his otherwise correct remark is that the transfer itself through the legal system of public domain with the effect and intention that it be used exclusively for the benefit of the Jewish community is an act of racial discrimination by the State. The use of the transfer instrumentality to that end is itself an act of racial discrimination, and when the law is used for such a purpose the legal system becomes an instrument of racism and racial discrimination.

In reality, the matter went further than mere transfer. The Custodian, who was the agent of the Israeli Government, for Israel has persistently refused the appointment of United Nations Custodian, transferred the property of the so-called absentees to the Development Authority, which is a government body, under the. Development Authority Law of 1950. The Authority, under said law, was empowered to sell those properties, but only to:

(a) The State;

(b) The Jewish National Fund;

(c) Municipal authorities, providing the land had first been offered to the Jewish National Fund;

(d) An organization engaged in settling Arab refugees who had remained in Israel. Such an organization was never established and virtually all the land was "sold" by the Government Development Authority to the State and to the Jewish National Fund 15/ as if they were acting as independent parties.

The involvement of the State in institutionalized racial discrimination against the Palestinian Arabs, even its own Arab citizens, went even further again through legislative and administrative action. In November 1961 the JNF and the Israeli Government signed a Covenant based on legislation enacted in July 1960. The Covenant set up two bodies: an Israeli Lands Administration controlled by the Government and a Land Development Administration controlled by the JNF. The Government-controlled body was charged with the management of State and JNF property under the restrictive JNF land policies which are to apply not only to land "owned" by JNF but also to State lands as well. Thus, despite all the legalistic gimmicking the State itself, through a Government- controlled body, had become a direct manager of racial discrimination.

It should be remarked that, under its own constitution, JNF is to hold the land as the "inalienable property of the Jewish people". The Sixth Zionist Congress of 1903 discussed the objectives and modus operandi of JNF and decided, inter alia, that land acquired by JNF was to be "inalienable" and that it could be developed by JNF itself or leased "but only to Jews". 16/ Under the aforementioned Covenant all those restrictions were enforced by a Government body in respect of 92 per cent of the lands of Israel. The involvement of the Government, again through its legislative action, did not stop at the actual implementation of the racist policies of JNF, but went further to provide legal protection against violations. In 1966 there was an uproar in Israel because some Jewish lessees subleased property to Israeli Arabs or used Arab labour. The Government intervened through the Agricultural Settlement Law of 1967 under which any individual or settlement engaged in those practices would have his land expropriated. The land would then revert to JNF or the Israeli Land Administration, as the case may be, whereupon these bodies would make arrangements for the use of the land in a more suitable fashion. 17/ The problem arose again in 1974 and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency conducted a vigorous campaign to eliminate this "plague" which was described by the Minister of Agriculture as a "cancer" which should be severely dealt with. 18/

Under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, States parties undertook 'not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations'. By the legislative measures it has taken, by the incorporation of racist organizations into the fabric of the State and utilizing them to achieve its racist objectives, and by concluding covenants and agreements with them with the full knowledge of their racist objectives, Israel is flagrantly violating its undertaking under the Convention and institutionalizing racism.


VI. Conclusion

Law are not words only. They implement ideologies and manifest or attempt to conceal intentions, and cannot, and shall not, be looked at in a vacuum of formal abstraction apart from their societal function. This applies to Israel as well as to others. They also play a decisive role in formulating attitudes and norms of behaviour. Rabbi Kahane is not an aberration of the system. He is one of its genuine products. Israel's persistent violation, as regards the Palestinians, of the rule of law, cannot but bring to mind the words of Moshe Sharett, Israel's first Foreign Minister and second Prime Minister when he confided to his personal diary as follows:

"What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and shortsightedness of our military leaders. They seem to presume that the State of Israel may - or even must - behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle." 19/

What Sharett has said about the military seems to apply with equal force to the mentality of the entire Israeli establishment. The pretence of propriety and legality is no substitute for the substance. Ratification or accession to international conventions or signature of solemn undertakings to the United Nations is no substitute for their implementation in absolute good faith.


Notes


1/ Henry Cattan, Palestine, the Arabs & Israel, The Search for Justice, Longmans, 1969, p. 164.

2/ Cited in Documents from Israel 1967-1973, Readings for a Critique of Zionism, ed. Uri Davis & Norton Mezvinsky, Ithaca Press, London, 1975, p. 88.

3/ Op. cit., pp. 88-89.

4/ 0p. cit., p. 97, emphasis in the original.

5/ Cited in Arabs in the Jewish State - Israel's Control of a National Minority, by Ian Lustick, University of Texas Press 1982, pp. 108-109.

6/ See on the whole subject, Sabri Jiris, Documents from Israel 1967-1973 Readings of a Critique of Zionism, ed. Uri Davis & Norton Mezvinsky, ibid., pp. 98-101.

7/ Lustick, op.cit., p. 292, note 29, for a general discussion of the legislation and Israeli policies regarding land.

8/ Ibid.

9/ Israel & Palestine Arabs by Don Peretz, The Middle East Institute, Washington, 1958, pp. 141-192.

10/ Zionism & the Lands of Palestine by Sami Hadawi & Walter Lehn, and Jewish National Fund: an Instrument of Discrimination by Walter Lehn, in Zionism & Racism, EAFORD publication, 1977, pp. 59-91.

11/ p. 149.

12/ Op.cit., p. 150.

13/ Cited in Cattan, op.cit., p. 166.

14/ Op.cit., p. 109. The word "Jewish" was emphasized in the original. 15/ Op.cit., Hadawi & Lehn, p. 71.

Abdeen M. Jabara

A general role of religious institutions
I. The Roman Catholic Church of Rome and the question of Palestine

In trying to return to what they had before the 1967 war, they were blocked every step of the say. They are now territorially one-fourth of the original size. Where there were once 600 boys and 450 employees, there are only 100 boys and 25 employees. Their 30,000 chickens were destroyed in 1967, so were their 400 dairy cows.

Musa Alami, shortly before his death this past June, had signed an agreement to turn over the operation to the Swedish Save the Children Society. Literally, outsiders have had to take it over, in order to rebuild it, for the simple reason that occupation authorities cannot act arbitrarily and with such callous disregard with an international organization.

If this can happen to an internationally renowned and bonafide group, what ran happen to these very new organizations I have just described? Law in the Service of Man, El-Hakawati, In'ash El-Usra and the Women's Work Committee are the tender shoots. Look what happened to this sturdy tree!


Ruth Sovik

"Networking". What is it? One of those words that is suddenly everywhere, not easy to define, and, somehow, embarrassing to use. But perhaps- we should take a look at it since it defines the assignment of this panel.

"Networking" is an alternative system of communication. Networking is the system of communication for those who have little or no power and the direction of that communication is horizontal. In the world of the powerful, communications systems, essential in maintaining power, work from the top down, or from the centre to the periphery.

It is not surprising, therefore, that women today are discovering this system and using it. It is not new to them, of course. Groups in every society who have no access to power have always used it - the poor, those under occupation, those struggling for self-determination, those fighting for survival.

What are the characteristics and advantages of networking?

Perhaps we can try to describe them. Networking is highly personal. Messages, calls for support, for simultaneous or co-ordinated effort on an issue are passed from person to person, from group to group. It is limitless in its possible scopes it has no natural boundaries. Word is passed from individual to individual and through an individual in one group to yet others. And so the network expands.

Networking creates bonds and builds community, often over very great distances. It is the communication of solidarity and is, to use a cliche, the communication of the "global village".

Networking is also communication between equals. No one, no group, is too small, too far away to join in the response to a call for a common effort.

Networking is flexible and responsive, and costs little or nothing. It does cost time and commitment. And then, of course, what is of primary importance to us, networking, when focused on particular actions, brings tremendous power and influence to bear on issues.

A note of caution should be sounded: Networking prospers without much organizational machinery to support it and it is often severely weakened by over-organizing it.

The Young Women's Christian Association is an organization of women, led by women and open to women of all faiths. These women, some three million of them, belong to national associations in about 80 countries spread throughout the world - from Fiji to Norway, from Zimbabwe to India, from Korea to Peru

With this diversity YWCA embraces the diversity of the world's opinions on the Middle East. Here, a brief picture of that diversity:

(a) We have two Palestinian associations, one in Jordan and one in the West Bank, both of them part of the former YWCA of Palestine, established in 1893. We have at the same time in the United States, Canada and Europe associations which have Jewish members at all levels of the association;

(b) In Europe and North America, our associations share the general sense of shame and guilt felt by the Christian world toward the Jews since the event of the Second World War, and as a result a kind of spontaneous defense of the State of Israel in all international questions;

(c) In Islamic countries where Muslims are in the majority and support for the Palestinian cause is part of the national consensus, YWCA, which is principally related to the Christian minority in those countries, is part of that consensus;

(d) In Africa and Asia, there is both the tendency to identify the biblical Israel with the modern State bearing the same name and, at the same time, the recognition that the struggle for justice of the Palestinian people is a liberation struggle similar to movements familiar to them out of their own recent past.

The world movement has not ignored the situation in the Middle East and the suffering of the Palestinian people and has taken positions in world meetings on these problems. It has also supported since 1947 the work of our associations in the Middle East with Palestinian refugees. But, finally, this was not enough. And it was a Palestinian member who forced us to face the question: what more must we do?

The decision was made to launch within the entire world movement an effort to educate our members, and their communities, on the questions of peace and justice in the Middle East and then see what came out of that process. The plan was simple. Citing the resolutions of the years past, associations were invited to set up study groups to study the Middle East situation. A visit to associations in the region was planned which we called Middle East Encounter In Search of Peace and Justice.

The study groups, using local resources and materials sent out by the world office, struggled to understand four main questions:

(a) Who are our sister associations in the region, and what are the needs and problems of the communities in which they live and serve?

(b) Who are the Palestinians (their history, culture, struggle, PLO) and who are the Israelis (the Diaspora, the demographic composition of the State of Israel)?

(c) The history of the conflict in the Middle East;

(d) The religious complexity of the region and, especially, the question of the relationship of the biblical Israel to the present political situation. Study groups sprang up in many parts of the world and eventually the visit took place. A group of 19 from 14 different countries, reflecting both the complexity of the world movement and the realities of international power politics in the Middle East, included women from Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and North America, among them two Jewish members of YWCA, another who had had the experience of living through a liberation struggle and several who remembered what military occupation meant. The group visited YWCAs of Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank and their communities. But the visit was more than a visit to friends. It was a trip into human tragedy, into deep self-questioning, and finally into understanding.

A brief, simple document, written by the group at the close of the visit, reflecting the basic consensus of the participants, focused on the similarities and differences between the three peoples (Palestinians, Israelis and Lebanese), the problems specific to each of these peoples, the factors outside the region which influence the chances for peace and finally a set of suggested steps toward peace. They affirmed in a phrase that has helped us weather many attacks and misunderstandings that "no solution can be found for one people at the expense of another". With this consensus document in hand, participants returned home to their communities to do what they could for peace with justice in the Middle East.

What have been the results? For the participants themselves, a sense of obligation to attempt to implement the consensus of the group. Participants spoke to many groups - 30 some in Great Britain alone. These groups varied widely - academic, community, religious, political) some hostile, some not.

Concrete actions were taken and are still being taken to make representations to government through personal contacts with people in parliament, and in foreign ministries, etc. Programmes are under way to inform the flood of Christians who go on pilgrimage to the Middle East on the situation of the people of the area. A group of young members of European YWCAs will join with young people from the West Bank in a summer camp in 1985 which will offer an opportunity to work together and to learn to understand each other. These European young people - students and young professionals - will return to multiply the number who have seen, heard and now understand and who will go and tell.

For the world movement, the results were felt when the 19 visitors educated the rest of the movement on the Middle East at the recent world assembly held at the end of 1983. The result of this effort is visible in a world policy statement which embodies the substance of the consensus document. A world policy statement passed by the world assembly carries with it the obligation of implementation. Under this obligation, YWCA of the United States, with its membership of approximately one million members, is attempting to put before its national convention early in 1985 a policy position on the Middle East in harmony with the world statement. Such policy statements are the basis for action at all levels in YWCA of the United States, from lobbying government on legislation to community-level information campaigns and solidarity actions.

What have we learned? We have learned that the process is long, and that it requires both patience and commitment. We have learned that it carries risks - to those who return to educate their communities and to the unity of the world movement as a whole. We have learned through the networking with others during the study process and afterward that we can be enormously strengthened in this task both by the knowledge and sophistication of others and by the human support they offer. We have learned that our specific role both as a world movement of women and as a NGO is the promotion of human dialogue between those of profoundly differing opinions and that this is both possible and essential. The experience of the study group within YWCA of the United States is living testimony to that fact. Only through dialogue could that Association have moved into this highly polarizing question. We have learned that, though this very human effort may seem inconsequential given the magnitude of the problem, it is a very positive factor in the establishment of the atmosphere necessary first for local national action and eventually for political negotiation.

Groups and individuals contacted through networking the local community during the preparatory process have sustained the associations' efforts to understand the Middle East issues. Networks have been created in the community through the contacts between those who, upon their return home, have felt a commitment to tell and those who have heard them. The world-wide network of the 19 visitors and the study groups from which they came has been enlarged by others who have shown vital interest in the problems of the Middle East during the world assembly. This world-wide network sustains our efforts towards peace and justice. What began as a question from a Palestinian sister has become a network of hundreds, perhaps of several thousands, of concerned individuals.

We look forward, now, to the opportunity offered next year by the NGO forum which will be held parallel to the United Nations meeting on the Women's Decade in Nairobi. Perhaps there, there will be another chance to increase the number of women concerned about peace and justice in the Middle East.


E. Paths to a Comprehensive, Just and Lasting Peace in the Middle East

Joseph Algazy


The Israeli-Arab conflict, or, if you wish, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has cost till today a very high price of blood and resources, has left behind widows and orphans and brought pain and torment to a lot of people. As thinking human beings, it is but natural that we shall look for the reasons and causes of this calamity. However, at this moment, I am convinced that it is much more important for us to find the way how to stop, once and forever, the killing; how to prevent it in the present situation that contains the seeds of the coming war.

The temptation is great to draw a historical balance-sheet of decades, of hundreds of events and occurrences, in order to find out the guilty and the extent of their guilt, and to seek absolute justice; however, this way only leads us to a blind alley that does not relieve us - Israelis and Palestinians - from the vicious circle of war, from further complications following it that lead to another war, and so on.

No, our generation is incapable of drawing a balance-sheet. Maybe the coming generations, after many years of peace, will be capable of doing so. In the present, every bookkeeping of mistakes and injustice leads only to a kindling of hostility and of the fire of war.

I do not hold this view for the sake of convenience or of opportunism, as complices use to do, who purify their sin by expressions of pious repent and wash their hands in clean water. What I want is something else. I want to contribute my share to the opening of a new chapter in the relations between Israel and Palestine; for this purpose we have to put aside - for the sake of our joint future - the hard feelings of the past that nourish the continuation of a permanent war. At this moment, we, as humanists, have one duty: to bring a solution that prevents further wars and brings possible and real justice and a lasting peace. I said possible justice, because I mean justice in this world, with its limitations, and not an absolute justice in the world of heaven after mutual destruction. The next war, and we do not know how it will develop, might expand beyond the borders of the region. Not guilty, guilty and innocent alike will pay an identical price: death. The conflict we are discussing today might, in some constellation, be the spark that kindles the next world war. We do not think enough about this danger. We live in an era of formidable technologies, in an era of a nuclear balance of horror, in an era of computers and all kinds of "Dr. Strangeloves"; we might lose control of them, and then... My words may sound today as if they were taken from a book of prophecies of doom; nevertheless, who can assure us that the situation will not deteriorate that far? The previous generations, too, had not thought of Auschwitz and Hiroshima, even in their worst dreams. So let us be vigilant.

The model of peace I shall present to you may look naive, a Utopia, a dream, in view of the hard reality facing us. But if we do not believe that peace is still possible, what have we gathered here for?

The State of Israel has been founded on the basis of the General Assembly resolution of November 1947, regarding the realization of the right to self-determination of both peoples, Israelis and. Palestinians. The first has realized this right and established its independent State, the State of Israel. The fate of the second people, whose greater part became homeless refugees, was suffering, misery and alienation; it became also a tool for various manipulations; till today, the Palestinian people has not realized its right to self- determination. This is the focus of the problem.

Since the war of June 1967, the areas in which the majority of the Palestinian people lives, are occupied by Israel. The Israeli occupation deprives the Palestinian people by force of its national rights, denies its right to live as a people as other peoples, deprives it of elementary human rights and of basic democratic liberties. The Israeli occupation Administration seizes the land and the water, establishes settlements in order to found a "Greater Israel" and to create conditions that will make the establishment of the Palestinian State impossible. This is the principal seed of calamities.

Inside Israel, the continuous occupation and its side-effects have developed cancerous tumours that gnaw at the Israeli society. We witness cases of extremist nationalism and unbridled, shameless racism. Fascist groups operate openly. Their representatives sit in the Knesset, preach their racist message undisturbed in the mass media, introduce their racist ideas into schools and army camps, poison the young generation. Israeli society is divided into a peace camp, still weak and not united, and a nationalistic, aggressive camp of war. The gaps and antagonism between well fed and hungry people, hungry for education, for a decent living and human dignity; between those who make profits from the war and the occupation, and those whose bread is cut by the war and the occupation and who pay with their blood for wars; between Ashkenasi and Sephardi Jews - these gaps and contradictions get deeper and deeper. The big Arab minority, who lives inside the State of Israel within the "green line", is a victim of a policy of discrimination; it has a hard, long struggle to conduct facing the racists who dream to drive it out of its homeland. To all these has been added the Lebanese swamp into which the Government of Israel has plunged us; the war in Lebanon, like previous wars, has blunted vehemently all contradictions and antagonisms inside Israeli society, and given them a distorted form.

But we must not close our eyes to the fact that the Governments of Israel were capable of doing so - and they are responsible for their misdeeds - thanks to conditions that made it possible, that helped them.

The Israeli Governments could not have done all this for such a long time without the encouragement and massive support of the United States; without the disagreement between the two super-Powers; without the indifference of Western Europe; without the reality of a split Arab world, without the complicity of reactionary, corrupt regimes; without the fact that the Palestinian camp that represents a basically just aspiration is not united; it still talks in several voices, sometimes contradictory and antagonistic; there are still some who adhere to sterile slogans and to maximalistic formulas; and some who persist in terrorist activities, which - it must be said openly and clearly - serve the occupation, the oppression and are primarily harmful to the Palestinian people, whom they are supposed to serve.

The model of peace, whose main points I shall present today, is based on principles of justice. I emphasize: a possible justice, justice that must be achieved by democratic means; in other words: a model of peace based on principles of universal humanism. To show the way toward such a peace I am capable of playing, without much difficulty, simultaneously, the role of the Israeli, of the Palestinian and even of the mediator between them.

First, the representatives of Israel, that is to say the Israeli Government, and the representatives of the Palestinian people, that is to say PLO, have to sit together, face to face, at the negotiating table and to negotiate the conditions for reaching peace. If they are unable to sit alone - let the representatives of the international community join them. If they refuse to sit down - let the representatives of the international community force them to do so. The United Nations and the Security Council can certainly fulfil this task. It is not up to Israel or to the Palestinians to decide who the representatives of the opposite party shall be. Israel has an elected Government, good or bad - this is a matter for the Israelis. The Palestinian people has a representative body, recognized by it and by most nations, which is PLO; the balance-sheet of its activities will be drawn by the Palestinian people alone.

In the negotiations, the parties, Israel and the Palestinians, will discuss the way to implement the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to establish its independent State. Where shall the Palestinian State be established? In the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, according to the lines of 4 June 1967. It is obvious that Israel has to evacuate all its forces from these areas.

Are the lines of 4 June 1967 sacred? Do they incarnate absolute justice? No. I do not pretend to suggest a model of a peace plan of absolute justice. I doubt if anybody can draft borders and lines for absolute justice. The lines of 4 June 1967 are lines of a possible justice, of realistic justice, these are the lines supported by the broadest international consensus. These are lines of concessions and compromise, of understanding and of realpolitik. Is realpolitik the privilege of the perpetrators of injustice? Do not the peoples, whose claim is just, need the services of practical wisdom? Are they, because their cause is just, free not to look for ways toward the implementation, the adoption of painful and necessary solutions? In the next stage, the international community has to take all steps needed in the opinion of both parties and in its opinion, to guarantee that the two States, Israel and Palestine, after having signed a peace agreement, shall live side by side in peace, not attacking each other, not serving as bases for an attack against their neighbours.

Shafiq Al-Hout

Maxim Ghilan


A man can only guide others along paths he has already walked. So, when reflecting aloud on possible paths to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Near East, I can only speak according to my own experience and offer modest advise from my specific viewpoint.

I am a national Jew and an Israeli; that is, I belong to the Jewish people (not the Jewish faith) as well as to the nation which has evolved in the last three generations in historical Palestine - evolved precisely at the same time (and for similar reasons) as the Palestinian nation, in all its specificity.

My work has centered, for the last 26 years, on the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and for the creation of a State of Palestine beside the State of Israel in its pre-1967 borders. Moreover, nave not just fought for peace between our two peoples, but for a just peace; never ever have we - in the International Jewish Peace Union and in Israel and Palestine Monthly - glossed over the sufferings and oppression of Palestinians, in order to make Jewish and Israeli peace activists more palatable, or acceptable, to the other side. And, in all fairness, never have our speaking partners of the moderate PLO camp seen the Israeli and Jewish progressive and democratic forces as co-responsible for the outrages committed against their nation by the Israeli Establishment, with the silent agreement of part of the Western World.

We gave them our love, brotherhood and friendship, in atonement for the sins of our fathers and brethren, or those of our youth; they responded with ethnic kindredness, brotherhood and solidarity; thus, over a period of almost ten years, were laid the first cobblestones on the path leading towards Israeli-Palestinian coexistence; cobbles cemented with the blood of many martyrs, Arab and Jewish, the foremost of them being the Palestinian leader, Isam'el Sartawi, assassinated last year in Portugal, and the Jewish-Egyptian progressive leader Henri Curiel, assassinated in Paris in 1978.

For, of course, we were but one group of several to walk this lonely.

path on the Jewish side; in this valley of shadows also walk the leaders and members of the Israeli Council for Israeli Peace, whose work has just culminated in the election to the Knesset of two members of the first Arab-Jewish slate, the Progressive List, which has brought to the Israeli Parliament Advocate Muhammed Miari, an exponent of the national rights of the Arab-Palestinian minority inside Israel, and his comrade, General Dr. Matitiyahu Peled, a former member of the IDE General Staff and a leading Jewish exponent of true democracy in Israel.

Before them - and us - walked the groups of the Israeli extreme Left:

Matzpen and Maavak, Israca and the Jerusalem-Matzpen group, who pioneered the political contacts with the other side, and opened, first, discussions with the Democratic Front for.the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and later with Fatah member, and then PLO representative in London, Said Hamami, who was likewise martyred and assassinated in the London office of PLO, in 1978, after he widened his contacts to mainstream Israelis. In the same valley of shadows, but on a separate path, walked and still walk our friends of the Israeli Communist Party Rekakh and of their Front for Democracy and Equality in Israel who established, separately, contacts with the mainstream PLO and with that organization's left wing. long ago.

So much for our path in the past. Let me now address myself, in this brief presentation, to the far longer path we still shall have to walk, in the future.

The parameters of our search were set, long ago; were, indeed, predestined from the beginning, thousands of years ago, from the day the first Jew explored the Land of. Canaan and the first Arab wandered there - both coming, at different times, from the great desert.

We are looking for a way in which the two peoples can co-exist, can live together in The Land, in freedom, in equality, in independence, and in prosperity.

If we really want freedom for all, equality for all, independence for each of the two peoples, and true prosperity for all those dwelling in The Land, there exists only one way.in which this can be initiated: by the creation of two separate, but co-operating States, side by side; which then will be free to evolve towards their separate or common destinies.

Therefore, the first and foremost struggle just now is that leading to the creation of a Palestinian national State in the West Bank and in Gaza. And it is up to us, democratic and progressive Jews and Israelis, to mobilize our efforts in this direction.

For, my friends, whoever controls the destiny of another people cannot remain free. He pays the price; as the Israeli nation is now paying the price of 1967 conquests and the 1982 war in Lebanon with the disintegration of internal Israeli morality. Worse, the Jewish people as a whole is beginning to pay for the sins of Israelis, as a significant minority of fanatic religious-Jewish extremists attempt to replace the humanist Judaic ethic by the worst and most obnoxious brand of Jewish fundamentalism, wrongfully debasing veneration of the Deity by adding to it the idolatrous adoration of blood and soil - "Slut and Erde" in German - those two main elements of all primitive, neo-primitive and totalitarian beliefs.

It is, then, not only as part of the Jewish people that I walk this path; it is primarily for its sake that I do so. I struggle in solidarity with the Palestinian people who fight for their freedom and self-determination beside Israel; but I cannot pretend to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians and to fight in their name. At best, ALSO, for their cause, as well as for the sake of our own interests.

Let us now see, what our strategic needs would be, in order to reach the goal of the two coexisting states:

First, it is obvious that there must be national and popular awareness of the other people's rights and needs. As Israel is now sitting on top of the Palestinian people, this should start - is starting - among Israelis. But the Palestinians, too, must sooner or later accept not only the fact of the physical and national existence of Israelis but their right to live there in freedom and independence - although not at the cost of the Palestinians. Therefore, our main struggle is, at this stage, to convince Israelis and Jews of the need for a national and independent state of Palestine, beyond Israel's pre-1967 borders.

Up to now, this struggle was led, among Jews, by the very few. In the long run, however, we trust it shall,led by the Jewish masses, and mainly by two camps: the more politically aware elements among Oriental Jews inside Israel; and, in the Jewish Diaspora, those Western Jews who have not sold away their liberal and democratic birthright for "upward social mobility" at home and dearly paid zionist "honours". in Israel.

Second, we must understand that we do not live in a vacuum - nor shall we live in one once peace between the "Siamese Twiaeof Palestine/Eretz Israel is achieved: the area has other nations and peoples; the majority of which are Arab. Therefore, our struggle passes through educating the Israelis to the fact that they must become part of the Mashreq, of the Levant; and educating the Arabs that Israel must not be rejected, once Palestine is born again, but rather integrated so as not to serve anymore as an agent of interests which are foreign to the area.

Third, we must acknowledge that nothing can be changed in this area without the agreement of both world super-Powers - the United States and the Soviet Union. All efforts made in the past to obtain a settlement for the conflict in the shadow of one of these super-Powers came to nought, as its opposite number simply vetoed such efforts in one way or the other. Our joint aim, the aim of all those who want an independent national Palestine to exist beside an independent and defensible State of Israel, must be to convince both super-Powers that it is better for both of them to have a peaceful Near East, than to use the area as a second-hand battlefield.

How can this happen? Only-through Israeli-Palestinian, and later on Jewish-Arab solidarity, which will eliminate the ability of outside forces to use the Arab peoples and the Israelis as their pawns, in dangerously negative world games.

If we should someday arrive at a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we will have opened the door to intra-Mashreq solidarity; and when this is achieved we will be able to finally convince the super-Powers through our joint forces - that a neutralized Near East, a Mashreq which the Soviet Union and the United States will accept as a non-beligerant buffer-azea.between their respective zones of influence - is a better deal for both of them than an area where never ending wars threaten the borders of the Soviet Union and of Western Europe.

Thus, my friends, from the relatively small acorn of Israeli-Palestinian peace may grow the many-leaved oak of Near Eastern neutrality, an essential part of a peaceful, future world order, in which there will be neither vanquished nor victors.

All those now working for justice and peace in the Near East should understand this. Then, they would redirect wisely their efforts in this direction: helping us to change Israeli society for the better; helping create the Palestinian national State; and finally, co-opting both into the heart of the Arab Levant, for the future of all of the Mashreq.


Lucille Mair

It is really a very special pleasure for me to be presiding as Moderator over this important panel and, as Don Betz has stated, that pleasure derives to a great extent from our awareness of the fact that the important work which we have seen done here over the past couple of days is a continuation of that momentum which we saw generated at the Geneva Conference last year and it is particularly gratifying to know that that dynamism continues and what we have here is the continuing commitment of that outreach constituency over and beyond governmental commitment to the issue before us.

I think we are all acutely aware of how precious time is today. I think that none of us, however, would have missed the opportunity to hear that inspiring address we received this morning from His Excellency Archbishop Capucci and in fact I think that we could very rightly claim that this was a very relevant opening statement, very directly aimed at our panel today: namely paths to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

Just a brief word about our format. It could be that we are undertaking a near impossible task this morning in that we are hoping to hear the statements of the very distinguished group of speakers who all have comments to make on this important topic. We are hoping in fact that we might hear possibly six or seven speakers this morning and in the afternoon we would like to throw the subject open for your participation. I am hoping that we can rely on the fullest co-operation and understanding of our panelists to keep within the time limit (approximately 15 minutes, absolute maximum of 20). I am going to claim the privilege of the chair to start off primarily to give some example of the desired brevity which we would wish to be the characteristic of this morning's session.

But more seriously to place today's topic within the context in very general terms of the international responsibility which clearly resides within the United Nations for that search for peace and for the achievement of that peace which is the prime objective of our considerations, the fact is that such a peace is inconceivable outside of the United Nations framework.

I think there are many of us here who are well aware of how easy it is to be cynical about the United Nations and this brings to mind a quotation of one of William Shakespeare's plays where the particular character, looking at a rather underprivileged person, who I seem to remember was also female, remarks that this was a "poor creature, an ill favoured creature, but my own". And I think in a way there is some relevance here to the United Nations. It may well be a poor creature, although one might have to considered who has made it, who created it in the first instance and who has made it poor. If it is ill favoured, who indeed has made it ill favoured. But it is our own, our very own. It is in fact the only creature which we have within our international system for promoting and ensuring global peace and global justice. And particularly in relation to this complex, this critical, this tragic issue which is our concern, namely the question of Palestine, this issue which is of major global implications, the only forum which accommodates all the leading protagonists from the Government of Israel, on the one hand, to the legitimate representation of the Palestinians on the other - the Palestine Liberation Organization - this is the only forum which can all parties can sit and I think we should also recall that it is under international law that that forum, the United Nations, accorded the proper role to the representative of the Palestinian people.

Our Conference in Geneva last year recalled the authority of the United Nations and I think it could be correctly stated that this was indeed one of the most important achievements of that Conference. It was so easy to forget that the issue started with the partition resolution within the United Nations and that this still important unfinished business. ICQP last year, consolidated an overwhelming international consensus, an international consensus in which the non-governmental participation was a fundamental element, consolidated that consensus on the significance and indeed the duty and responsibility of the United Nations to find that solution. Out of that consensus emerged the strong recommendation that now we have to get down to business around the negotiating table, namely the recommendation for that Middle East Peace Conference. You will recall that that recommendation of Geneva was subsequently endorsed by an equally overwhelming consensus in the General Assembly at its last session and we know that this too is the core of your consideration and the action proposals that we would like to carry forth from this meeting here.

As far as the United Nations goes, that resolution of the General Assembly is within the United Nations pipeline. Both the Secretary-General personally as well as active members of the Security Council, leading members of the Non-Aligned Movement and other regional groups are actively pursuing ways and means of making that conference a reality. Your own further thrust from this Conference will greatly facilitate that United Nations process.

However, we know well the stalemate that that process has reached at this point. We know exactly who and what is blocking that process. But this stalemate that we are observing whereby the majority of the Members States that have been consulted about their willingness to participate in that Conference have unequivocally agreed. In one or two instances there have been some reservations as to the terms in which they would participate, but nevertheless there is an overwhelming agreement to participate. But the stalemate which emanates from governments of which we are well aware is, in my mind, an indicator of something which is widespread and profound and deeply disturbing and indicative of a rather bleak climate of international relations which effects the capacity of peoples and of institutions to handle the grave issues of our times.

It is a reflection of a steady erosion of the United Nations among other multilateral systems and we see there the authority being flouted, undermined, as a consequence of this unfortunate decline of multilateralism. This is a steady, mounting trend which should alert us to the dangers of our current situation. It is a trend towards global unilateralism, which is threatening to engulf us in what the Secretary-General of the United Nations has himself recently described as international anarchy.

It is evident in many sectors, in many fora, in many processes throughout the multilateral system. It is critically evident in the area of economic relations for example where the North-South global dialogue has gone exactly nowhere and all the signs are that this is a deepening trend. We have seen it in relation to what is happening to that eminent agency of the United Nations, namely UNESCO. We are seeing it in the humanitarian sectors, we are seeing it, of course, in specific political and regional issues.

So it is within this context of the reality which we should face, which is that as we see here, to find a global solution to the most critical political issue on the international agenda. At the same time we are virtually working against the tide whereby multilateralism is just not the fashion of the day.

I would like to feel that this presents a tremendous challenge to a meeting such as this: the challenge to exercise the political will and effort of our constituencies here represented to channel the search for Middle East peace into proper institutional processes. To clearly, explicitly, courageously confront those powerful forces which would turn the tide back to international collective action. This and only this in my view can permit a negotiated settlement for restoring Palestinian rights and ensuring that the United Nations with its historic responsibility and original responsibility can be revalidated for its unfinished task. May I humbly suggest that this should be part of the context and the backdrop against which we can hear the specific important contributions of particular panelists on the subject to Paths to a Comprehensive, Just and Lasting Peace in the Middle East.


Anwar Nusseibeh

Path-finding is a thankless task at the best of times. It becomes even less rewarding in a situation such as this: a situation which is charged with historical memories, religious sensitivities, emotional pressures, conflicting interests and exaggerated hopes and fears otherwise sometimes described as human folly that create a maze in which the line that distinguishes right and wrong is blurred or even lost altogether in the search for the practical and the possible.

Why then make the attempt in the first place? Partly because the alternative to debate is violence and violence on the evidence only compounds the evil. Look at Lebanon. But also because partly I take heart from the nature of the present forum. Thus as a former politician I found it was always easier to be articulate in the opposition than in office and while I know that a non-governmental organization need not, Irish-fashion, be anti-governmental as well, nevertheless its debating forum can perhaps be regarded as less inhibiting because its expectations, one hopes, are more modest. Therefore, in this rather tentative and far from authoritative vein I would venture the following thoughts.

It is perhaps a truism to say that the Arab-Israeli conflict poses a dilemma. What is a little surprising, however, is the judging of the recent Israeli elections. This dilemma appears to be as confounding to Israelis as it is to outsiders. No matter who will lead the next Israeli Government or what shape that government will take, its options for political manoeuvre will be greatly limited. Therefore, the present impasse will regrettably continue to govern Arab-Israeli relations for some time to come. The cost in human terms will be considerable although the American safety-net will presumably underwrite all the other costs.

Now, this, despite the assumption, is a gloomy perspective and the question that is always asked is whether there is a special jinx that spoils our equation. In my opinion there is no such jinx. Beyond the nature of the conflict itself, there is the reputed perversity, not always deserved, of its immediate protagonists and the reluctance of third parties to be seriously involved. Instead the third parties voice sympathy, offer advice, or, on occasion, material assistance, but generally they tend to look the other way. Therefore viewed from the Palestinian perspective, and without in any way wishing to sound churlish or ungrateful, the armistice agreements of 1949 and the great humanitarian endeavour undertaken on behalf of Palestinian refugees, first by the Red Cross and later by the United Nations, did not basically deviate from this pattern. They were stop-gap measures that attempted to alleviate the crisis in human terms but that did not even begin to solve it and again the question is asked "why"? There is, of course, no simple answer.

However, it is a fact that, apart from the Jordanian exception, all the political processes that involved Israel in the meantime were processes from which the Palestinians themselves have been excluded. Nor had exclusion been altogether fortuitous. It was in fact an exclusion that was impelled by Palestinian choice. Thus, for reasons not far to seek, the Palestinians have never taken kindly to Zionist thought and had liked even less Zionist practices. As the Palestinians saw them, both posed a threat to Palestinian existence in all its forms and all its dimensions. A threat that was as dynamic as it was uncompromising..

Therefore, the Palestinians have attempted to resist that threat in commensurate terms. That is, in terms that were as total as the threat itself. In that context, they refused to accord the source of that threat legal recognition and the recommendations of the field commission were consequently rejected as were the later recommendations of United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947 calling for the partition of Palestine. Instead, the Palestinians offered what the Zionists would not accept, namely a united Palestine of Arabs and Jews, living together in peace but outside the framework of zionism.

Ahmed Osman
Amnon Zichroni
Archbishop Capucci
CLOSING REMARKS

Ambassador Mohammed Farid Zarif


VII.

List of participants and observers

Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization (AAPSO)
American Arab Community Center
American Baptist Convention, International Ministries
American Friends Service Committee
America-Israel Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism Arab Lawyers Union
Arab Palestine Association of Canada Arab Women's Council
Association Belgo-Palestinienne
Association des Etudes
Internationales Association des Juristes Democrates
Association de Solidarite Franco-Arabe
Association France-Palestine
Association Medicale Franco Palestinienne
Association Suisse des Amis de L'Universitie de Bir Zeit
Association Suisse Palestine
Canadian Arab Federation
Catholic Near East Welfare Association
Centre de Cooperation Avec L'Universitie de Bir Zeit
Centre de L'Enseignment du Quebec
Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development
Centre International d'Information sur les Prisonniers Deportee et Disparus Palestiniens et Libanais
Churches Commission on International Affairs Church of Christ
Church of Humanism
Christian Peace Conference
Christian Peace Movement
CIMADE
Comite France Jerusalem Al Qods
Comite Palestine et Israel Vivront
Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding Democratic Front for Peace and Equality - Israel
Democratic Women's Organization of Israel
European Coordinating Committee of Friendship Societies with the Arab World
Evangelical Episcopal Community
Friends World Committee of Consultation
General Union of Arab Students in Israel
International Commission of Jurists
International Council of Voluntary Agencies
International Fellowship of Reconciliation
International Institute of Humanitarian Law
International Jewish Peace Union
International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples
International Movement for Fraternal Union Among Races and Peoples
International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
International Progress Organization
International Union of Family Organizations
International Union of Students
International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations Islamic Council of Europe
Islamic Women's Association
Institute of Development Studies
Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Labour Middle East Council
Law in the Service of Man
Liberation
Le Regroupement Pour UN Dialogue Israel-Palestine
Ligue Israelienne Pour les Droits de L'Homme et du Citoyen
London Friends of Palestine
Middle East Council of Churches
Middle East Fellowship
Mouvement Pan-Africain de la Jeunesse
NAJDA: Women Concerned About the Middle East National Council of Churches, USA
New Direction
November 29th Committee for Palestine
Palestine Front of Norway
Palestine Committee of Norway
Palestine Human Rights Campaign
Palestine Studies Programme
Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation
Peace, Friendship and Solidarity Organization of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Presbyterian Church USA
Prisoners Friends Association
Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute
Radda Barnen
SANAD (Community Service in Palestine)
Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel
Solidarity Committee of the GDR
Soviet Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee
Trade Union Friends of Palestine
Union of Arab Jurists
Union Inter-Parliamentaire Arabe
United Nations Association of Egypt
Women's International Democratic Federation
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
World Assembly of Muslim Youth
World Confederation of Labour
World Federation of Teacher's Union
World Muslim Congress
World Peace Council
World YWCA


NGO Observers
An-Najah National University
Dutch Palestine Committee
Joint Organization for Palestine
Institute of Oriental Studies
International Human Rights Law Group
Medical Committee Holland



List of observers governments

Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People

H.E. M. Massamba Sarre, Chairman (Senegal)
H.E. M. F. Zarif, Permanent Representative of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Andre Tahindro, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Zehdi Labib Terzi, Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations, New York

Other governments

Dr. M. Akbar Kherad, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)
Dr. Monika Rose, German Democratic Republic (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)
Mr. Amer Jomard, Iraq
Dr. Ghazi Rababha/Mr. Hisman Mumaisen, Jordan (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)
Mr. Luis Aguirre, Panama (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)
Mr. Ibrahim Sy, Senegal (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)

Inter-governmental organizations

Mr. Osman El-Hajje, League of Arab States
Palestine Liberation Organization

Mr. Shafik Al-Rout, Member of Central Committee, PLO, Tunis
Mr. Marat Abdelrahman, Director, PLO, Tunis
Mr. Raissir Al-Adjouri







THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL NGO MEETING
ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE

United Nations Offices

Geneva

20-22 August 1984




Corrigendum







Page 5, paragraph 4, Line 11

International Commission of Jurists should be deleted.



Corrigendum 2


THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL NGO MEETING


ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE

United Nations Offices

Geneva

20-22 August 1984

Corrigendum



Substitute pages 162 to 164 for the following:

VII. List of participants and observers

NGOs

Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization (AAPSO)
American Arab Community Center
American Baptist Convention, International Ministries
American Friends Service Committee
America-Israel Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism
Arab Lawyers Union
Arab Palestine Association of Canada
Arab Women's Council
Association Belgo-Palestinienne
Association des Etudes Internationales
Association des Juristes Democrates
Association de Solidarite Franco-Arabe
Association France-Palestine
Association Medicale Franco Palestinienne
Association Suisse des Amis de L'Universitie de Bir Zeit
Association Suisse Palestine
Canadian Arab Federation
Catholic Near East Welfare Association
Centre de Cooperation Avec L'Universitie de Bir Zeit
Centre de L'Enseignment du Quebec
Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development
Centre International d'Information sur les Prisonniers Deportes et Disparus Palestiniens et Libanais
Churches Commission on International Affairs Church of Christ
Church of Humanism
Christian Peace Conference
Christian Peace Movement
CIMADE
Comite France Jerusalem Al Qods
Comite Palestine et Israel Vivront
Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding
Democratic Front for Peace and Equality - Israel
Democratic Women's Organization of Israel
European Coordinating Committee of Friendship Societies with the Arab World
Evangelical Episcopal Community
Friends World Committee of Consultation
General Union of Arab Students in Israel
International Commission of Jurists
International Council of Voluntary Agencies
International Fellowship of Reconciliation
International Institute of Humanitarian Law
International Jewish Peace Union
International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples
International Movement for Fraternal Union Among Races and Peoples
International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
International Progress Organization
International Union of Family Organizations
International Union of Students
International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations
Islamic Council of Europe
Islamic Women's Association
Institute of Development Studies
Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Labour Middle East Council
Law in the Service of Man Liberation
Le Regroupement Pour UN Dialogue Israel-Palestine
Ligue Israelienne Pour les Droits de L'Homme et du Citoyen
London Friends of Palestine
Middle East Council of Churches
Middle East Fellowship
Mouvement Pan-Africain de la Jeunesse
NAJDA: Women Concerned About the Middle East
National Council of Churches, USA
New Direction
November 29th Committee for Palestine
Palestine Front of Norway
Palestine Committee of Norway
Palestine Human Rights Campaign
Palestine Studies Programme
Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation
Peace, Friendship and Solidarity Organization of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Presbyterian Church USA
Prisoners Friends Association
Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute
Radda Barnen
SANAD (Community Service in Palestine)
Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel
Solidarity Committee of the GDR
Soviet Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee
Trade Union Friends of Palestine
Union of Arab Jurists
Union Inter-Parliamentaire Arabe
United Nations Association of Egypt
Women's International Democratic Federation
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
World Assembly of Muslim Youth
World Confederation of Labour
World Federation of Teacher's Union
World Muslim Congress
World Peace Council
World YWCA




NGO observers

An-Najah National University
Dutch Palestine Committee
Joint Organization for Palestine
Institute of Oriental Studies
International Human Rights Law Group
Medical Committee Holland


Members and Observers of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People

H.E. M. Massamba Sarre, Chairman (Senegal)
H.E. M. F. Zarif, Permanent Representative of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Andre Tahindro, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations, New York
Mr. Zehdi Labib Terzi, Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations, New York


Panelists

Joseph Algazy (Israel) Riah Abu Al-Assal (Israel) Ismail Al-Faruqi (USA)
Shafiq al-Hout (Palestinian)
Edith Ballantyne (Switzerland)
Igor Beliaev (USSR) Elmer Berger (USA)
Claude Bourdet (France) Rachid Driss (Tunisia) Anis El-Qasim (United Kingdom)
Maxim Ghilan (France) Abdeen Jabara (USA)
Hans-Peter Kotthaus (France and Belgium)
Niall MacDermot (Switzerland) Lucille Mair (Jamaica) Leopoldo Niilus (Switzerland) Anwar Nusseibeh (Israel) Ahmed Osman (Egypt)
Ernie Ross (United Kingdom) Joseph L. Ryan (Jordan) Audrey Shabbas (USA)
Raja Shehadeh (West Bank) Ruth Sovik (Switzerland) Emile Touma (Israel)
Klaas de Vries (Netherlands) Amnon Zichroni (Israel)


Representatives of States members of the United Nations

Dr. M. Akbar Kherad, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)
Dr. Monika Rose, German Democratic Republic (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)
Mr. Amer Jomard, Iraq
Dr. Ghazi Rababha/Mr. Hisman Mumaisen, Jordan (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)
Mr. Luis Aguirre, Panama (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva) Mr. Ibrahim Sy, Senegal (Mission to the United Nations Offices, Geneva)


Mr. Osman El-Hajje, League of Arab States

Complete document in PDF format (Requires Acrobat Reader)

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter