{"id":197104,"date":"1990-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T17:20:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=197104"},"modified":"2020-01-08T18:38:01","modified_gmt":"2020-01-08T23:38:01","slug":"auto-insert-197104","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-197104\/","title":{"rendered":"Seventh United Nations International NGO Meeting on the Question of Palestine (Geneva, 29-31 August 1990) – Report – DPR publication"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
SEVENTH UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL NGO MEETING<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Palais des Nations, Geneva<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 29-31 August 1990<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n \n <\/p>\n CONTENTS<\/p><\/div>\n \n Page<\/u><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Introduction <\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n A.<\/p>\n B.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Opening statements<\/p>\n Panel discussion <\/p>\n<\/td>\n 2<\/p>\n 4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Annexes<\/u><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n I.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Declaration adopted by the Seventh United Nations International NGO Meeting<\/p>\n on the Question of Palestine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n II.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Workshop reports<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n III.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Statement by Jan Martenson, Under-Secretary-General,<\/p>\n Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva,<\/p>\n on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n IV.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Message from Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive <\/p>\n Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 34<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n V.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n List of participants and observers<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n \n <\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n \t<\/span>The Seventh United Nations International NGO Meeting on the Question of Palestine was held under the auspices of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, from 29 to 31 August 1990. The Meeting was convened in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 44\/41 B of 6 December 1989.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Meeting was attended by 250 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 57 of which attended as observers. It was also attended by several observers from Governments, intergovernmental organizations, United Nations specialized agencies, bodies and programmes, and Palestine.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was represented by a delegation composed of H.E. Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee, H.E. Mr. Alexander Borg Olivier (Malta), Rapporteur of the Committee, H.E. Mr. Samuel R. Insanally (Guyana), H.E. Mr. Ismail Razali (Malaysia) and Mr. Zuhdi Labib Terzi (Palestine).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The programme of the Meeting was elaborated by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in consultation with the International Co-ordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ICCP). Its main theme was "Palestine and Israel: prerequisites for peace". Four panels were held:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>On Panel 1, entitled "Breaking the impasse in the peace process through the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East: the influence of Palestinian, Israeli and international NGO co-operation", presentations were made by the following experts: Mrs. Tamar Gozansky (Israel), Mr. Sari Nuseibeh (Palestinian), Mr. Mattityahu Peled (Israel) and Mr. Nabeel Sha'ath (Palestinian).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>On Panel 2, entitled "Intifadah<\/u> update", presentations were made by the following experts: Dr. Mustafa Barghouti (Palestinian), Mr. Ibrahim Dakkak (Palestinian), Mr. Hashem Mahameed (Israel) and Dr. Haider Abdel Shafi (Palestinian).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>On Panel 3, entitled "The changing role of NGOs: Building a movement? Where have we been? Where are we now? Where are we going? What can we do?", the following experts made presentations: Mr. Ghassan Abdallah (Palestinian), Mr. Don Betz (ICCP), Mr. James Graff (Canada), Mr. Jean-Marie Lambert (ICCP), Mrs. Maha Mustaklem Nassar (Palestinian) and Mr. Amnon Zichroni (Israel).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>On Panel 4, entitled "Movement of populations: the law and politics. Rights of Palestinians; Reunification of families; Immigration", presentations were made by the following experts: Mr. Ibrahim Abu-Lughod (Palestinian), Mr. Bashir Al-Khairi (Palestinian), Mr. Ahmad Sa'ad (Israeli Arab) and Mr. Amnon Zichroni (Israel).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Six workshops were also held on the following topics:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Meeting adopted a final declaration as well as proposals emanating from the workshops (see annexes I and II below).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n A. Opening statements<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n Statement of the Under-Secretary-General, Director-General<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n of the United Nations Office at Geneva<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>A statement was made by Mr. Jan Martenson, Under-Secretary-General, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (annex III).<\/p><\/div>\n Statement by the Chairman of the Committee<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo, Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, after welcoming the participants to the international Meeting, expressed regret that a number of Palestinians invited to the Meeting had not been allowed by the Israeli authorities to leave the occupied Palestinian territory. The Committee protested vigorously against those arbitrary Israeli decisions, which were a violation of the rights of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory to freedom of movement and association and contrary to the duty of a Member State to allow persons under its jurisdiction to attend meetings organized under United Nations auspices.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The situation in the occupied Palestinian territory was seriously deteriorating. In response to the Palestinian peace initiative of December 1988, Israel had taken a provocative attitude. Every day the list of the dead and wounded grew longer, the settlements multiplied and the daily pressures of life under occupation grew more unbearable. The human and social consequences were so dramatic that United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Health Organization and International Labour Organisation had deplored and condemned the paralysis in the education and health systems and the poor living and working conditions of the Palestinian people.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The intifadah<\/u> was having an enormous impact not only on the Palestinian people but also on the Israeli political system itself, with the creation of new, autonomous Palestinian institutions and the strengthening of the process of disengagement from the occupier. It was regrettable that the international community was still not in a position to take effective steps to protect the Palestinians who were in a highly vulnerable position. The absence of progress towards a peace process, the suspension of the dialogue between the United States and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the growing influx of new immigrants had heightened feelings of anxiety and sharply raised tensions.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Committee and the NGO community had to reflect and seek to identify specific measures to break the deadlock, prevent extremists on either side from having their way, end the bloodshed and move towards true peace. The Committee would continue to emphasize the twin need to promote an overall settlement in accordance with international principles and United Nations resolutions, and to devise specific, effective measures to protect the Palestinian people under occupation. The urgent restoration of respect for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory was a sine qua non<\/u> and all necessary steps had to be taken by the High Contracting Parties to the fourth Geneva Convention and all others concerned to make Israel abide scrupulously by its obligations as an occupying Power.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The meetings organized in various regions by the Committee had enabled NGOs to draw up action strategies which would strengthen the Committee's efforts. However, much remained to be done, and the Committee therefore counted on the support and active involvement of NGOs throughout the world for activities which would help attain common objectives.<\/p><\/div>\n Statement by the Chairman of ICCP<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Don Betz, Chairman of the International Co-ordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine, said that in 1990, positive global changes had taken place, but not in the Middle East, where the swirl of current events had created new and potentially overwhelming problems, particularly for Palestinians striving to end the occupation and create an independent Palestinian State.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The precarious and dangerous Gulf crisis was a reminder that the unresolved issues of the Middle East were interdependent and that negotiations within the framework of the United Nations International Peace Conference on the Middle East offered the most equitable and hopeful path to a just and lasting peace. In the light of alarming reports about the human cost of the uprising, the NGOs had agreed to assist and protect the Palestinian people. The NGOs, as independent observers, could bring pressure on the occupation forces by their presence, even though the occupying Power tried to prevent their access at the moment when their presence would be most effective as a restraining force. More international monitors were needed in occupied Palestine. The United Nations should augment its role in providing protection for a civilian population living its twenty-fourth year under occupation. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East should review its Refugee Affairs Officer Programme and strengthen it. Other United Nations-sponsored programmes should be reviewed for effectiveness and relevance in meeting the needs of the Palestinian people under occupation.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>During this seventh international meeting, NGOs should seriously consider that the time had come for the United Nations to focus global attention on Palestine through another major conference, a United Nations-sponsored model peace conference on the Middle East with NGOs from each of the countries involved assuming the responsibility of representing the various nations in a simulation of the process of achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. NGOs could fulfill their roles in protecting the people with their words, with their actions, with their expanding tangible support and with their refusal to accept nothing short of peace with justice solidly rooted in self-determination. Their responsibility as NGOs was to deny the world any possibility of ignoring this struggle and assist the Palestinian people to the fullest extent of their capabilities and interests. At the end of August 1990, the sheer urgency of the moment demanded from them more than ever.<\/p><\/div>\n Message from the Chairman of the Executive Committee of<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>A message from Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, was read out by Mr. Nabil Ramlawi, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva (annex IV).<\/p><\/div>\n B. Panel discussion<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n Panel 1<\/strong>:<\/p><\/div>\n "Breaking the impasse in the peace process through the convening of the<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n International Peace Conference on the Middle East: the influence of<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n Palestinian, Israeli and international NGO co-operation<\/u>"<\/p><\/div>\n \t<\/span>Mrs. Tamar Gozansky<\/u>, member of the Israeli Knesset, said that the international Meeting was devoted to the urgent need of breaking the existing impasse in the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The United States, she said, once again had shown that it sought hegemony in the Middle East rather than peace and prosperity for the region's people. "Powerless" when it had to deal with the peace process, the United States Administration showed its might when it decided to concentrate an unprecedented military force in the Gulf, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. That invasion had to be ended, but why by war and not on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions and through negotiations? The Israeli Government was particularly enthusiastic in its support of the American military preparations in the Gulf and was ready to use the current crisis for further repressive measures in the occupied territory.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could not be separated from the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. An Israeli-Palestinian peace could be achieved only within the framework of a comprehensive peace between Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries. It was now clear that an international peace conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices was needed. Only within the framework of such a conference was it possible to achieve a comprehensive solution, based on balancing the different interests and ensuring the security of all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>There was only one basis for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: a just solution to the Palestinian question, within the framework of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian State which would arise at its side. Dialogue between Israel and the PLO should be an objective.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The intifadah<\/u> had contributed to make the Palestinian peace plan a strong political weapon; and thanks to it, public support for the idea of two States, Israel and Palestine, had increased in Israel and all over the world.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Mattityahu Peled<\/u>, Chairman, Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, said that the Middle East was undergoing one of its most difficult crises and that the struggle over the control of the oil resources had taken a new and dangerous turn. Under these circumstances, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the search for its solution had been relegated to a secondary position on the international agenda and the Palestinian issue had been put on hold for more than two years.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The dominant factor in drawing world-wide attention to the plight of the Palestinians had been the intifadah<\/u>.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Israeli peace plan conceived jointly by the United States and Israel was meant not to facilitate the search for a solution, but to obstruct it and far from aiming to solve the Palestinian problem, it intended to eliminate it. That plan never meant to develop into a significant instrument for enhancing the peace process. Although at times it appeared that there were some differences between the United States and Israel, in essence they always agreed that there would be no room for a Palestinian State alongside Israel and that the PLO would not be considered a legitimate partner to the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>He went on to say that recent experience showed that efforts to win over wider circles of Israelis and world Jewry would not be productive unless they were based on the consistent position expressed by the NGOs, which was in conformity with the three principles formulated by the General Assembly, namely: 1. Recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to self determination and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian State alongside Israel; 2. Recognizing the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; \t<\/span>3. The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be reached in an international peace conference where all relevant parties would participate including the five permanent members of the Security Council.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Unlike the Kuwaiti problem, which was related to the problem of controlling the oil resources, the Palestinian problem was that of a people urgently in need of exercising their legitimate political rights. A welcomed outcome of the Kuwaiti crisis was the emergence of the Security Council as a body acting in unison. The position they were taking regarding that crisis was that the use of force in order to annex another people's territory was unacceptable in international relations. The lesson from the current crisis was that regional conflicts should not be allowed to ferment over a long time unattended and unresolved.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The history of the search for a solution to the Palestinian question, he said, was not promising. It had been conducted with the intention of letting it stifle over time. But more recently, the European Community had adopted a position much closer to that embraced by the NGOs. It was expected that in the year 1992, a united Europe, together with the Soviet Union, would exert greater influence over the conduct of world affairs and bring the United States to alter its traditional anti-Palestinian position.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>There was very little the NGOs could do about the Kuwaiti crisis but they could urge leaders to heed the lessons from it and support the "two States" formula based on United Nations resolutions. They could convince them of the need to convene the International Peace Conference on the Middle East. It was time for NGOs to make themselves more conspicuous in Europe and elsewhere.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Sari Nuseibeh<\/u>, a professor at Bir Zeit University, said that the Palestinian people continued to dream that justice would one day prevail in Palestine. This dream was neither about destruction nor about hatred or revenge; it was about mutual respect and coexistence. It was the dream of a Palestinian State. This dream was embodied in the poems written by detainees at Answar Detention Camp, in the painting of a 12-year old child from a Gaza refugee camp depicting a Palestinian flag rising proudly in defiance of Israeli weapons. It was embodied in the intifadah<\/u>, in the PLO's political programme, and especially in the Palestine Declaration of Independence and the call for a two-State solution. As the Palestinian dream was to have peace based on real justice, the Palestinians had stretched out their hands to Israelis in the hope that reconciliation could be achieved. The Palestinians clung to their dream, in spite of the fact that in Israel, not only had the Palestinian peace offer been rebuffed, but the public mood continued to be manipulated by the Government to adopt more extremist and hawkish attitudes. The Palestinians continued to cling to their dream because it was either that dream for coexistence, or else, annihilation or extinction.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>He said that as a Palestinian living under occupation, who believed sincerely in the sacred human right to freedom, who rejected and was repulsed by the use of force, the main problem which bothered him in the Gulf crisis was the following: Where had the world been for the last 23 years of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, of Israeli violation of the natural right of that people to be free and independent? By what logic or right had the Security Council legitimized the use of force in the Gulf when it had allowed the Palestinians to feed entirely and simply on words and useless resolutions for all those years? Why had the United States Government been dormant over Palestinian rights all those years and suddenly moved to act against occupation, as it claimed, and for the right of national self-determination? What was it about the Kuwaiti people, that so moved the American moral sense, as it was claimed, which was absent in the Palestinian people? Why was it that, when the people from the occupied territories asked the Security Council to send them an inquiry commission to look into the massacres being perpetrated against them, the United States found the demand too unrealistic and exaggerated and vetoed the resolution, whereas it found it entirely appropriate to put its full military capability against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Iraqi occupation of Kuwait was wrong and illegal. Iraqi claims against Kuwait should have been resolved peacefully, in negotiations, within the context of the Arab world. If, at some point, the Kuwaiti people decided, along with the Iraqi people, to forge a union between them, then that should be the free expression of the right of self-determination of the two peoples. It should not come about by force.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>A solution to the Gulf crisis should also be found, and the modalities to be applied could not but be applicable to the rest of the region. It was with that logic of consistency that the PLO had sought to play a mediating role. A precedent had been set in the mutual withdrawal of forces by Iraq and Iran. A solution based on that precedent of withdrawal could be applicable in the other areas. It was the responsibility of all those who valued human life, dignity, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to stand up against the American military intervention and call for justice, to be implemented also in Palestine. The world was facing an alternative: either the Palestinian dream would come true and it would come true for Palestinians as well as for all those fighting for their freedoms, or humanity would be facing an all-out world conflict, a major catastrophe, as Chairman Arafat had recently termed it.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Nabeel Sha'ath<\/u>, Chairman of the Political Committee of the Palestine National Council, said that the peace process was at an impasse, which was particularly obvious in the three months prior to 2 August. Among the many instances of that impasse was the American veto of any resolutions that would have sent a fact-finding mission to investigate the situation in the occupied territory. Another was the refusal of most of the European countries to use sanctions against Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>There were several ways of looking at the situation: one, expressed by Mr. Peled, was that the Security Council was developing some teeth and would use them to bite at Israel's intransigence later on. The other, expressed by Mr. Nuseibeh, recognized the hypocrisy of the different treatment accorded the Gulf problem and the Palestine question. A third angle was that any process of conflict resolution required both persuasion and pressure. In the Palestinian case, when the decision was taken to adopt measures of persuasion, the only method of pressure left was the intifadah<\/u>. The Palestinians were not assisted by any pressure from the Arab, European, Soviet or American sides, but they were in fact denied any such pressures. Without pressure, persuasion could not help them very much.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>In the Gulf crisis, the Americans attempted nothing but pressure and no persuasion. Neither of the two approaches could succeed. Persuasion plans had not succeeded with the Israeli Government and pressure alone would not succeed when the coming war would be on the world's supply of the most combustible and precious of materials – oil. Maybe what was needed was a bit of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in the Gulf and a bit of Security Council resolution 661 (1990) in Israel. A dilemma existed which could not be solved but by a mixture of the two situations — the Gulf and Palestine.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>In those two situations, the PLO's position was very clear and based on a principle which was exactly the same in both cases: inadmissibility of the use of force and of the occupation of a territory, and recognition of the rights of people to legitimacy and self-determination. A negotiated, non-imposed, regionally supervised, internationally sanctioned solution was wanted in both situations; a peaceful solution leading to the two States in the Palestine situation, and a peaceful solution in the Gulf situation. Both had to be based on principles, on dialogue, on negotiations, on international legality and under the flag of the United Nations.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>There was a glimmer of hope in statements made in the West that perhaps going to war over the Gulf was not the right thing and that the political process should be allowed to do its work. It was also said that if Security Council resolutions were applied in the Gulf, they should be applied in Palestine. Non-governmental organizations should go on the road of support for real peace in Palestine, in the Gulf and in the world and should play a persuasive role and aid the Palestinian people. They should talk about sanctions against those who occupied other people's land by force. They should talk about sanctions against Israelis, talk about more strength in protecting the Palestinian people and call for a judicious mixture of persuasion and pressure which would go a long way towards peace in the Gulf, the Middle East and the whole world.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel 2<\/strong>:<\/p><\/div>\n "Intifadah<\/u> update"<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Dr. Mustafa Barghouti<\/u> of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (Jerusalem), said that the intifadah<\/u> had become a lifestyle in the occupied territory and was characterized by several outstanding features, notably (a) it had a clear political programme; (b) it involved and reflected widespread Palestinian self-reliance; (c) it continued to be characterized by popular unity within Palestinian ranks; and (d) it had created and maintained the potential for mass popular participation in the struggle against occupation.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The potential for massive confrontation was present at all times and in this context, socio-economic conditions had continued to deteriorate, particularly in the health sector. The Gulf crisis was adding new problems by resulting in drastically reduced financial remittances from the Gulf.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Despite the sacrifices of the Palestinian intifadah<\/u>, there was no political progress, which had caused a great deal of anger and frustration among Palestinians. Several real risks currently confronted the Middle East and the world, as the intifadah<\/u> neared the completion of its third year, namely (a) escalation of the oppression by the Israelis of the Palestinians under occupation; (b) a possible war breaking out in the Middle East, which would be used by Israel as a pretext for transferring Palestinians; and (c) a decline in the international solidarity with the Palestinian people.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>A shift in the focus occurred in the occupied territory with the lack of political progress and mass Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union. In the face of this, the Palestinian infrastructure of resistance continued to be put in place. In this respect, the Palestinian organizations and the international NGOs had a series of responsibilities aimed at advancing the independent infrastructures which had been set up, helping to provide protection for the Palestinians, applying pressure on Israel in order to force it towards political compromise and assisting in emergency tasks such as the struggle in the medical field.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Regarding the Gulf crisis, the Palestinians, as a people under occupation, did not support the use of force nor the occupation of Kuwait. Efforts had to continue to find a solution within the framework of the Arab world. In order to consolidate and press forward the achievements of the intifadah<\/u>, the problems of the current phase had to be dealt with at various levels simultaneously by the Palestinian and the international organizations in a spirit of co-ordination, planning and decentralization.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Ibrahim Dakkak<\/u>, Chairman, Arab Thought Forum (Jerusalem), said that the intifadah<\/u> was about to enter its fourth year with resolute determination to play a role in the shaping of peace in the region. Characterized by its consistently peaceful approach, the intifadah<\/u> was a popular movement endeavoring to put an end to the Israeli occupation and enable the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights. It was and would remain the greatest manifestation of the Palestinians' rejection of the occupation and their determination to exercise sovereignty on their national soil. The intifadah<\/u> would not subside until the occupation, with all its practices and acts of aggression, had been terminated. The resilience of the intifadah<\/u> was evident from the manner in which it had adapted to events, which was consistent with its programme based on the termination of the occupation and the establishment of the independent Palestinian State. It had pursued a realistic approach by refusing to follow an immutable course of action and in order to retain its credibility among the masses, it had also refused to modify its approach. Given the fact that since its inception 30 months ago, the intifadah<\/u> had achieved outstanding successes, had clearly marked out the path towards a lasting peace in the region, and that it had constituted a popular Palestinian referendum, its present and future consequences had important strategic dimensions. In addition to forming an integral part of the Palestinian national struggle in general, the intifadah<\/u> had strengthened the Palestinian independent system in the occupied territory and made it less prone to domination by the Israeli system.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Palestinians' ability to resist the occupation was being strengthened by the loosening of the traditional patriarchal relationships in Palestinian society and also by the emergence of young leaders with new social and intellectual backgrounds, by the large-scale involvement of Palestinian women and by the establishment of a new national system. Palestinian popular (non-governmental) organizations had played and were still playing an important role; considerable moral and material support had been provided to the Palestinian people by governmental and non-governmental organizations as well as by United Nations bodies and specialized agencies. By recognizing the State of Palestine, many States throughout the world had strengthened the determination of those engaged in the intifadah<\/u>. In that regard, the Palestinian people greatly appreciated the common stand taken by the European Community in support of the convening of an international peace conference to be attended by all the parties concerned and primarily the PLO, with a view to the establishment of a lasting peace in the region.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Palestinian people was feeling deep and legitimate concern at the intensification of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union and East European countries to Israel. Ways had to be found to avert that danger.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Israeli occupation had hampered the Palestinian development process not only in the service and production sectors but also in the field of education, culture and values. It was very important to promote the Palestinian national system and make it more independent of Israeli control. If Palestinian institutions, United Nations bodies and specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations wished to serve the Palestinian people, they had to co-ordinate their endeavours at the highest possible level in order to make their assistance more effective. As a first step towards optimum co-ordination, the following action was needed: (a) increase the scope and effectiveness of development activities undertaken by the United Nations; (b) develop a mechanism for co-ordination between the United Nations programmes and programmes of local Palestinian institutions; (c) provide adequate protection for Palestinian development projects; and (d) hold periodic co-ordinating meetings to review the development programmes proposed by the United Nations.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Hashem Mahameed<\/u>, a member of the Knesset, said Palestinians were determined to safeguard their right to an independent State like all peoples. The intifadah<\/u> was a struggle for the fundamental right to self-determination, under the aegis of the PLO. Those involved rejected repression and occupation and had a right to their fatherland. The intifadah<\/u> had brought about the failure of the fait accompli<\/u> approach. It would be impossible to overcome the intifadah<\/u> without resorting to modern means of repression, but the uprising would never stop as long as repression continued.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The majority of the Israeli nation was against a fait accompli<\/u> approach, he said, adding that only 16 per cent were in favour of continuing the existing situation. The presence of Israeli soldiers was totally rejected and condemned by the Palestinian people. The soldiers themselves asked why they were in the occupied territory. As a result of the intifadah<\/u>, there was an increase in violence and crime in the Israeli society. What the Palestinians wanted was recognition of the PLO, the convening of an international peace conference and a Palestinian State. Many Israelis now supported the creation of a Palestinian State and that had been due to the intifadah<\/u>. Also affected were Palestinian Arabs living in Israel. They were proud of the intifadah<\/u> and supported it.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Arab-Israeli conflict had to be solved with the creation of a Palestinian State in the occupied territories, he said, adding that the Green Line had to become a real boundary. Fascist trends, aimed at striking at the Palestinian presence in Israel, were appearing. The Palestinian Arabs in Israel had demonstrated against such trends. Israel claimed to be a democratic country – but that was false because of its treatment of millions of Palestinians in the occupied territory as well as of the Palestinian Arab inhabitants of Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Until the Israeli majority played a more positive part in the peace process, the whole region would be in danger, he said. The PLO had asserted its desire for peace, yet Israel had not moved. No peace could be achieved without PLO participation. All that Palestinians were asking for was peace and an independent State on the basis of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 27 November 1947. He appealed to President Bush to halt the vast economic and military aid to Israel, a country which violated United Nations resolutions.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The presence of foreign forces in the Gulf would not enable Arabs to settle the crisis themselves, he said. Israel was taking advantage of what was happening in the Gulf to settle immigrants on Palestinian land. Despite the daily bloodshed, the intifadah<\/u> continued. Force would not bring an end to the intifadah<\/u>.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Dr. Haider Abdel Shafi<\/u>, President, Red Crescent Society for the Gaza Strip, said that the intifadah<\/u> was another landmark in the series of Palestinian uprisings against injustice and aggression. If there had been any impression that the Palestinians, in the face of the overwhelming Israeli military power, had abandoned their inalienable rights and accepted occupation, the intifadah<\/u> had dispelled that. The intifadah<\/u> was distinguished from previous uprisings by its broad-based popular involvement and by its capacity to endure in the face of unprecedented brutality. The roots were the following: (a) the hopeful waiting for united world efforts to restitute rights and rectify injustices; (b) the protracted Palestinian plight, deprivation and exposure to victimization; and (c) the occupation experience which affected the Palestinians in having them feel the impact of the heavy-handed and brutal conduct of the military as well as the impact of direct contact with the Israeli society which enjoyed a democracy allowing among other benefits, social organization and civic progress. The intifadah<\/u>'s symbolic violence only emphasized its strong and sincere call for a just and stable peace. The intifadah<\/u> was essentially a state of mind and an act of will that refused the logic of fait<\/u> accompli<\/u>, and which continued to call for peace based on justice and equitable coexistence.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>In its denial of Palestinian rights and in the light of its military superiority, Israel had been in no mood to ponder the meaning of the intifadah<\/u> phenomenon. Force had been used abusively, disproportionately and without restraint, not sparing children, women or the aged (fire arms, toxic gas, beating clubs, curfews, demolition of homes, destruction of property, uprooting of trees). Also, violations of human rights such as mass arrests, restrictions of movement and torture during investigation had been perpetrated. In addition, right from the start, occupation had been exercised in the service of Israeli political objectives by seeking to integrate the territories into the economy of Israel. That had been accomplished through decrees controlling agriculture, industry, commerce, labour, marketing, communications, water and electric power, which resulted in a state of economic interdependence, biased in favour of Israel. The economic problem had been and continued to be the basic threat to the endurance of the intifadah<\/u>.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Palestinian peace initiative, he said, was a product of the intifadah<\/u>. There was a peace aspect of the intifadah<\/u> that had escaped the attention of many. The essence of the Palestinian peace initiative was the Palestinian acceptance of the principle of the two-State solution as a basis for negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, in the context of an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>The Shamir peace initiative was a peace of conquest and expansion, an imposed peace which presupposed the ultimate alienation of the Palestinian people from their homeland. Israel was currently exploiting the Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. The Palestinians were not against implementing the principles of human rights. But if such an implementation came to be related to the right of settlement in Palestine, priority should be for the Palestinian refugees uprooted from their homes by Israeli force and terror. To deprive those refugees of their inalienable rights in their homeland and replace them by another people was the height of injustice.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel 3<\/strong>:<\/p><\/div>\n "The changing role of NGOs<\/u>"<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Jean-Marie Lambert<\/u>, Executive Director, Geneva Office of the International Co-ordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine, giving a historical summary of the development of ICCP, stated that since 1986, an NGO movement had emerged which was aware of itself and was becoming willing to act together in order to have a greater effect on public opinion. He attributed the development of the NGO network in particular to the efforts of ICCP and its office aimed at increasing contacts between the NGOs. Regional NGO co-ordinating bodies had gradually been set up, i.e.:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n
\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p><\/div>\n