{"id":198233,"date":"1994-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T17:33:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=198233"},"modified":"2019-03-12T17:33:37","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T17:33:37","slug":"auto-insert-198233","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-198233\/","title":{"rendered":"International NGO Meeting\/European NGO Symposium (Geneva, 29 Aug-1 Sept 1994) – Report – DPR publication"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
UNITED NATIONS<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n INTERNATIONAL NGO MEETING<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n and<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n EUROPEAN NGO SYMPOSIUM<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Palais des Nations, Geneva<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 29 August-1 September 1994<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n \n CONTENTS<\/strong><\/i><\/p><\/div>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>Page<\/i><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n I.\t<\/span>INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………. 3<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n II.\t<\/span>OPENING STATEMENTS……………………………………………. 4<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n III.\t<\/span>PANEL DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………….. 5<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n IV.\t<\/span>CLOSING STATEMENTS…………………………………………… 15<\/p><\/div>\n Annexes<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n I.\t<\/span>Communiqué adopted by the Eleventh United Nations<\/p><\/div>\n \t\t<\/span>International NGO Meeting and Eighth European NGO<\/p><\/div>\n \t\t<\/span>Symposium on the Question of Palestine…………………………. 16<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n II.\t<\/span>Workshop reports…………………………………………….. 18<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n III.\t<\/span>List of participants and observers…………………………….. 24<\/p><\/div>\n \n <\/p>\n I. INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 1.\t<\/span>The United Nations International NGO Meeting and European NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine were held as a combined event under the auspices of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, from 29 August to 1 September 1994.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 2.\t<\/span>The meeting was convened in accordance with General Assembly resolution 48\/158 B and was attended by the representatives of 98 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 17 of them as observers. It was also attended by 30 Governments, 8 United Nations agencies and bodies, 4 intergovernmental and other organizations, 5 non-governmental coordinating committees, a delegation from Palestine and 27 panelists and workshop leaders.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 3.\t<\/span>The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was represented by a delegation composed of H.E. Mr. Kéba Birane Cissé (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee and head of delegation; H.E. Mr. Ravan A. G. Farhadi (Afghanistan), Vice-Chairman; H.E. Mr. Joseph Cassar (Malta), Rapporteur of the Committee; and H.E. Mr. Nasser Al-Kidwa, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 4.\t<\/span>The programme for the meeting was formulated by the Committee in consultation with the International Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ICCP) and the European Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ECCP) at a preparatory meeting held at Geneva on 21 and 22 February 1994. Its central theme was Building on the Declaration of Principles towards the independent State of Palestine.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 5.\t<\/span>Six panels were held, during which 27 panelists made presentations. Also held were three workshops and two audio-visual presentations. In Panel I, entitled Implementation of the Declaration of Principles, presentations were made by Mr. Zehdi L. Terzi, Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Romesh Chandra.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 6.\t<\/span>In Panel II, entitled Elements of the final settlement, presentations were made by Mr. Ibrahim Shaában, Mr. Muhammad Hallaj and Mr. Khader Shkirat.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 7.\t<\/span>In Panel III A, entitled The Palestinian peoples reality today, presentations were made by Mrs. Maha Shawa, Mr. Marai Abderrahman and Mr. Victor Kashkoush. In Panel III B, entitled Israeli society and the peaceful settlement with the Palestinian people, presentations were made by Mr. Peretz Kidron, Mr. Dan Leon and Mr. Nouri Abdul Razzak.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 8.\t<\/span>In Panel IV A, entitled Social and economic development of Palestine, presentations were made by Mr. Samir Huleileh and Mr. Ahmed Saad. In Panel IV B, entitled The role of NGOs in the social and economic development of Palestine, presentations were made by Mr. Stephen Day, Mrs. Maria Gazi, Mr. Anis Al Qaq, Mr. Bruce Stanley and Mr. Fritz Froehlich.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 9.\t<\/span>In Panel V, entitled The role of NGOs in supporting the work of the United Nations, presentations were made by Mr. Anis Al Qaq, Mr. Larry Ekin, Mrs. Elaine Hesse Steel, Mrs. Maria Gazi and Mr. Donald Betz.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 10.\t<\/span>In Panel VI, entitled Campaigning for Palestinian national and human rights, presentations were made by Mrs. Janice Abu Shakrah, Mr. Larry Ekin and Mr. Ilan Halevi.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 11.\t<\/span>A communiqué reflecting the sense of the deliberations was adopted at the final session (see annex I).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 12.\t<\/span>The three workshops discussed separately the issues of Palestinian health, women and education (see annex II).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n II. OPENING STATEMENTS<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 13.\t<\/span>The meeting was opened by H.E. Mr. Kéba Birane Cissé<\/strong>, Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 14.\t<\/span>Mr. Ibrahima Fall<\/strong>, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, read out a message on behalf of the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in which he stressed the importance the United Nations attaches to the contribution of NGOs in the quest for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. In his message, the Secretary-General valued the political development in the Middle East, including the historical signing by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of the Declaration of Principles in September 1993, the May 1994 Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area, and the Washington Declaration, signed in July 1994 by Israel and Jordan. He added that without development, hopes for peace will soon turn to despair; without productive, meaningful employment, the young will be restless, and concluded that economic and social development of the West Bank and Gaza is an essential basis for peace-building in the whole region.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 15.\t<\/span>A statement on behalf of H.E. Mr. Yasser Arafat<\/strong>, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, was read by his Senior Adviser on International Organizations, Mr. Zehdi L. Terzi. After conveying the greetings and wishes of Chairman Arafat, Mr. Terzi stated that an independent State of Palestine is the cornerstone for building peace in the Middle East. He argued that implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which the Declaration of Principles calls for, does not imply excluding or rescinding all or any of the other relevant United Nations resolutions specifically of the Security Council. He said that the interim period of self-rule is fraught with pitfalls, problems and shortcomings, and there was a need for hard work to implement the agreed principles and to establish the State of Palestine. Meanwhile, he stressed, there was a need for funds to cover recurring costs of governing the self-rule areas and for building their major infrastructures. He ended the statement with an appeal to NGOs to pool their resources to prevail upon their respective Governments and institutions to hasten and accelerate their contributions.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 16.\t<\/span>The Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, H.E. Mr. Kéba Birane Cissé<\/strong>, after welcoming participants, said that since the last meeting of that forum in 1993, the Middle East peace process had advanced by a remarkable and historical breakthrough. The signing of the Declaration of Principles had led to a series of subsequent agreements between Israel and the PLO and to significant progress in the other tracks of the Middle East peace talks, including the Washington Agreement between Israel and Jordan. He added that many delicate questions remained to be resolved, such as the status of Jerusalem, the refugee issue, the future of Jewish settlements, and security borders. He said that the Committee had also noted with regret that the expansion of settlements around Jerusalem and the harsh measures practised by Israel against the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank had continued even after the signing of the Declaration of Principles. The Committee had also noted with satisfaction the pledges made by donor countries to the Palestinian Authority that could make possible the opening of new jobs in Jericho and in the Gaza Strip and alleviate some economic burdens in those areas. In that regard, the Committee would like to express its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts to mobilize the resources of the United Nations system in support of the Palestinian people during this period of transition. Mr. Cissé stressed that the role of NGOs as grass-roots organizations had become more crucial in rebuilding the Palestinian society and expressed the Committees determination to contribute to that process and its readiness to continue to cooperate with NGOs in this endeavour.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 17.\t<\/span>Mr. Stephen Day<\/strong>, Chairman of ECCP, said that developments over the past year had astonished the most seasoned observers. Nevertheless, informal opinion was divided as to whether peace was in prospect. There was a mass of disturbing evidence that little had changed on the ground. United Nations resolutions and the principles of international law enshrined in fundamental accords had yet to be implemented. There could not be one set of rules for the majority of the world community while the primitive maxim that might is right governed relations between Israel and its neighbours. A primary purpose of the current meeting was to reassert that argument and to reaffirm support for the United Nations role. He expressed the Coordinating Committees support for those struggling to establish the foundations of what they hoped would become the Palestinian State.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 18.\t<\/span>Mr. Don Betz<\/strong>, Chairman of ICCP, said that a lethal combination of deception and ignorance persisted in attempts to alter the focus of the work on the question of Palestine, to distract the wider public with side issues and pernicious stereotypes. By making the issues seem complex beyond comprehension and resolution, those opposing peace rooted in justice tried to take the worlds eyes off the prize. The struggle had always been about self-determination, about ending an unconscionable, generation-long, illegal and immoral occupation. The saga was about the recognition of the inherent right of a people to govern themselves. It was about statehood and the creation of the critical circumstances crucial to the vitality of such a State.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 19.\t<\/span>The tasks of NGOs did not cease with the initialling of the Declaration of Principles. The longstanding United Nations commitment to cooperation with NGOs on the issues facing Palestinians should be applauded. He said that they should strengthen such collaboration as both groups devised alternative ways of contributing effectively to the objectives outlined in relevant United Nations resolutions on Palestine spanning the past 40 years.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n III. PANEL DISCUSSIONS<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel I <\/strong>Implementation of the Declaration of Principles<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 20.\t<\/span>Mr. Zehdi L. Terzi<\/strong>, Senior Adviser on International Organizations to Mr. Yasser Arafat, said that since last years meeting, a new approach was being concluded, including the signing in September 1993 of the Declaration of Principles. Although the agreement had not heralded many improved prospects for the Palestinian people in the immediate or foreseeable future, it nevertheless provided momentum for the peace process. Israels disregard over the years for the content and implementation of relevant United Nations resolutions was paralleled by its current failure to carry out its obligations as outlined in the Declaration. Self-determination was an internationally recognized right that was applicable to the Palestinian people. That has been opposed by Israel with the constant support of the United States. However, a new approach by then President George Bush had opened the way in March 1991 for negotiations based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the principles giving Israel security and recognition while providing for legitimate political rights for the Palestinians. Months of negotiations had proved fruitless and Israel had persistently evaded any discussion of resolution 242 (1967), which called for the withdrawal of its military forces from the Arab and Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem. Meanwhile, another channel of negotiations, sponsored by the Government of Norway, had taken place. The Declaration of Principles, which was signed based on those negotiations, provided a mandatory withdrawal of Israeli armed forces.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 21.\t<\/span>In analysing the Declaration of Principles and the Cairo Agreement, he said that Israels foremost concerns regarding the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area were security and public order, which faced a problem in financing. Funding was also a problem in key administrative services, as well as in development and reconstruction projects.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 22.\t<\/span>Mr. Terzi concluded that crucial items had been postponed in the Declaration of Principles, including the matter of the displaced Palestinians, the settlements and Jerusalem. The future status of Jerusalem was the key to peace in the Middle East. He expressed concern over Israels attempts to strengthen its control over the city, declaring that any part of the occupied Palestinian territory as liberated was premature at that stage. Pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, the land remained occupied territory and Israel remained the occupying Power, with all that that implied, under the Fourth Geneva Convention.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 23.\t<\/span>Mr. Stephen Day<\/strong>, Chairman of ECCP, stated that the apparent inability of Europe to play a political role commensurate with its historical, geographical and economic weight, practically leaving the field to the United States, deeply disappointed Arab observers. The essential European reaction to the announcement of an agreement between the PLO and Israel was one of surprise. The news was a major blow to European pride.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 24.\t<\/span>The European countries were well aware that human rights, economic development and the peace effort in the region overlapped closely. European statements since the signing of the Declaration had been responsible to a certain extent for encouraging public opinion to believe that peace had already been achieved. The corollary to that was that the situation in the field had been ignored and outstanding problems continued. There was a risk of severe disillusionment setting in, particularly among the Arabs, for whom life had not changed for the better.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 25.\t<\/span>It was very difficult to escape the conclusion that Europe had used the Declaration of Principles to withdraw even further from its historic responsibilities. The European Commission acknowledged the vital role played by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and NGOs in the region. The daily reports of violence against Palestinian civilians and suppression of democratic activity made depressing reading. The current meeting had to discuss how best to support NGOs in their vital work in support of human rights and to raise public awareness of the facts. The work of those concerned to see justice in Palestine had never been more difficult nor more important. There was a chance for a just settlement, but it would take many years of effort and they were now only on the starting line.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 26.\t<\/span>Mr. Romesh Chandra<\/strong>, Honorary President of the World Peace Council, said work had to continue until the establishment of an independent State of Palestine. The Palestinian people rejoiced when they saw the PLO flag flying over some parts of the occupied territories. But they could not rejoice fully because not all the territories had been liberated, not all the Palestinian prisoners had been released, the killings and repression continued, the settlements remained and the exiles had not yet come home. Peace and development were directly linked in the building of the Palestinian State.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 27.\t<\/span>He emphasized the important role played by the United States and many of its partners in encouraging Israel to continue its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. Among other things, he expressed concern that the present United States Administration might seek to have some of the key United Nations resolutions on the issue rescinded. It was vital for all concerned, especially NGOs, to strengthen and continue their efforts to fulfil their pledges to the Palestinian people.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel II <\/strong>Elements of the final settlement<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/strong>Jerusalem<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 28.\t<\/span>Mr. Ibrahim Shaában<\/strong>, Director of the Palestinian Housing Council, spoke on proposals regarding the status of Jerusalem. Proposals for the internationalization of Jerusalem had failed because they had avoided the problem, which none the less remained. Another proposal called for accepting the existing situation, but with two different sections of the city run independently. That meant rewarding aggression as a means to acquire territory. Yet another suggestion had been the creation of two States with two capitals in an open city. That took into account the aspirations of both parties, but it ignored the many changes in the eastern part of the city. In 1967, some 66,000 Palestinians had lived in East Jerusalem. Nowadays, 150,000 Palestinians and 155,000 Israelis lived in the same area, which meant that the newcomers outnumbered the Palestinians in the eastern part.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 29.\t<\/span>In 1971, the Security Council had stated very clearly that Israeli actions to change the status of the city were invalid. One should ask the question of whether might was right: was it by creating facts on the ground that one made law? Any solution to the overall conflict should take into consideration justice and equity. The proposal to separate the city completely, as it was before 1967, was not acceptable to the international community. It should be recalled that Jordan had no sovereignty over East Jerusalem. In accordance with international law, sovereignty over Jerusalem rested with the Palestinian people, not with the occupying Power. Regarding the creation of a separate arrangement for holy places, as mentioned in the Washington Declaration and which assumed divine sovereignty, that meant that somebody represented God on Earth; that was very difficult to accept, especially in the twentieth century. The solution to the conflict had to take into account the solution to the problem of Jerusalem.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Refugees<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 30.\t<\/span>Mr. Muhammad Hallaj<\/strong>, Executive Director, Centre for Policy Analysis on Palestine, speaking in his personal capacity, said that, although efforts to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict had come a long way, the struggle was not yet over. It was even premature to say that the peace process had reached the point of no return. The small successes achieved so far in the Palestinian-Israeli track were due in no small measure to the fact that talks had not yet begun on the issues that fuelled the conflict. Among them, the future of Palestinian refugees loomed large. In fact, it was possible to say that the refugee question was the most fundamental and difficult of the remaining issues. For the Israelis, how the refugee question was ultimately settled impinged on the Zionist notion of Israel as the State of the Jews.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 31.\t<\/span>For the Palestinians, it touched their vital concept of peoplehood, in addition to security needs and the well-being of the Palestinians living in the diaspora. The resolution of the refugee issue defined their national identity and determined their social coherence and the integrity of the family unit. The world community had understood and recognized the essential facts about the Palestinian refugee problem, as reflected in General Assembly resolution 194 (III), which recognized the right of return as the cornerstone of any solution. What was needed was a way to implement an agreed but long-ignored solution. It was unfortunate that, in some quarters, it had become respectable to argue that that which was unacceptable to Israel was impractical. But if the right of return was impractical, because of Israeli intransigence, alternative solutions were impractical for even more compelling reasons. For example, resettlement violated not only the inherent right of displaced persons to repatriation, but it tore apart Palestinian society and perpetuated its fragmentation. Furthermore, resettlement violated the will of the host countries whose economic capacity did not permit the permanent absorption of large communities of non-citizens. To abandon United Nations resolutions simply because Israel did not like them also set a dangerous precedent. The most dangerous threat to the eventual success of the peace process was the myopic Israeli perception of Palestinian rights as residual – that they were limited to what Israel could afford after it met its own needs.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Settlements<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 32.\t<\/span>Mr. Khader Shkirat<\/strong>, Director of the Land and Water Establishment of the West Bank, said that one of the most significant Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territory had been to encourage Israelis to settle in and expand settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, to attain a demographic majority in order to maintain control of the region. He added that the building of settlements had not stopped during or since the signing of the Declaration of Principles. The only thing that had changed in Israeli policy since the coming to power of the Labour Party was that now more intelligent methods were being used. That was particularly true in Arab Jerusalem. The Israeli settlement drive in the occupied territories had been implemented through a policy of creating facts and making radical changes in the physical character of the city, with postponement of the subject of settlements to the final stage of negotiations.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 33.\t<\/span>The Hebron massacre was a clear example of that policy, since as a result the city was divided, and restrictions had been imposed on the freedom of its Arab inhabitants. The speed with which settlements were being built was going to transform Jerusalem into a Jewish city. At that rate, in one year there would be nothing to negotiate. The Palestinian leadership should obtain a freeze on the building of settlements.<\/p><\/div>\n Panel III A <\/strong>The Palestinian peoples reality today<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 34.\t<\/span>Mrs. Maha Shawa<\/strong>, economist and Head of the International Cooperation Division of the Health Department of the Palestinian Authority, described the real life situation of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, focusing especially on the Gaza Strip. The population in both areas was approaching 2 million, which represented, particularly in Gaza, a population bomb marked by very high density. That state of affairs had been worsened by the establishment of settlements, where 4,000 settlers lived on 40 per cent of the total area of the Gaza Strip, while more than 800,000 Palestinians lived on the remaining 60 per cent.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 35.\t<\/span>Mrs. Shawa stressed that the infrastructure in the territories had been either damaged or had not existed in the first place. For example, there was no adequate sewage system – drinking water had a high salinity component; there was no urban planning – the environment was threatened by pollution; roads were in a miserable state; electricity and telephone lines were connected to those of Israels.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 36.\t<\/span>The territories industrial base was very small and unable to absorb the growing demand for jobs. The opening of the economy was important for the territories to flourish. Unemployment was estimated at 40 per cent in general and much higher in Gaza.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 37.\t<\/span>A number of practices of the Israeli authorities also had a negative influence on Palestinian life in the territories. Those included the issue of the Palestinian prisoners, the permit system that divided the occupied territories into sealed zones and seriously hampered freedom of movement, and the demolition or sealing of houses. The situation in the new autonomous regions had hardly changed, but the people were happy because for the first time they had their own police force, flag and schools and they could even go to the beach. Those were but the first steps and the situation was critical. The Palestinians would spare no effort to attain peace based on justice and the attainment of all their rights.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 38.\t<\/span>Mr. Victor M. Kashkoush<\/strong>, Director-General of the Welfare Association, spoke about the situation of the Palestinian people in the diaspora and the role they could play in building the Palestinian State. Palestinians in the diaspora outnumbered those in Palestine two to one. Their achievements were quite remarkable in several fields, including science, education and banking, to name a few, and their experience would be most valuable in the development of a Palestinian State. Extensive transfer of capital and technology and the reverse brain-drain were already taking place. Diaspora Palestinians would constitute the bridge between a Palestinian State and the other Arab countries.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 39.\t<\/span>Certain prerequisites were necessary, including the key ingredients of good government. However, Palestinians in the diaspora did not need to wait until everything needed was in place to start contributing to the growth of the economy: multimillion dollar undertakings were under way. He also described the activities of the Welfare Association on behalf of Palestinians, both within the territories and in Israel. The Palestinians of the diaspora would continue to be valuable players in the transition, reconstruction and development of the Palestinian nation.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 40.\t<\/span>Mr. Marai Abderrahman<\/strong>, Secretary-General of the Palestine Committee for NGOs, said a most important prerequisite was to reach a unified, coherent understanding of the accords. Fifty years of struggle, of wars and interventions had taught the Palestinians much. It had prompted them to adopt an attitude of political realism. They had to confront the reality regarding the struggle of the Jews to create a Jewish State in the region. However, re-examination of that concept did not constitute acceptance or rejection of that undertaking. It had to be seen as a reality. Without re-examining that question, the idea of political realism and the thinking of Palestinians on certain concepts would remain tactical. It was necessary to examine the Jewish question. The agreement was only the beginning of a long and arduous path. Life imposed on all the people in the region the need to respect each other and all their rights and interests. He stressed the importance of the role played by the peace-loving forces in Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel III B <\/strong>Israeli society and the peaceful settlement<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n with the Palestinian people<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 41.\t<\/span>Mr. Peretz Kidron<\/strong>, Israeli freelance journalist and writer, recalled that Mr. Rabin and Mr. Arafat had shaken hands and the sky had not caved in; history had taken a step forward and there had been no calamity. True, peaceful coexistence was a long way off: the distance was even greater to get to genuine good-neighbourly relations. But in the most immediately crucial area — the way ordinary people perceived the facts of life — the decisive breakthrough was behind them. Peace in the short term was the cessation of bloodshed, and that blessing called for no apology. However, without genuine democracy, it would be a sham of peace.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 42.\t<\/span>In order for both peoples to channel their national energies to solving domestic problems, they must lay their conflict firmly to rest, not merely suspend it. Acts of States were not enough. Israels acceptance of Palestinian national rights was a major step, so was mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. Above all, an end to the occupation that had crushed the Palestinian people and sapped the Israeli occupiers of their moral and spiritual essence had to be realized.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 43.\t<\/span>However, beyond the required political and diplomatic steps, the two peoples had to follow the path to the historic reconciliation promised in the Oslo accords. Paradoxically, the path to genuine peace had to pass through a phase of separation. Close everyday contact made it virtually impossible to avoid stepping on each others toes. Our first step towards becoming good neighbours must be to erect good fences, he concluded.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 44.\t<\/span>Mr. Dan Leon<\/strong>, Managing Editor of the
\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n<\/p><\/div>\n