{"id":207542,"date":"1995-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T19:24:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=207542"},"modified":"2019-03-12T19:24:06","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T19:24:06","slug":"auto-insert-207542","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-207542\/","title":{"rendered":"International NGO Meeting and European NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine (Vienna, 29 August-1 September 1995) – Report – DPR publication"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµITED NATIONS<\/p><\/div>\n
INTERNATIONAL NGO MEETING<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
and<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
EUROPEAN NGO SYMPOSIUM<\/p><\/div>\n
ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Vienna International Centre, Vienna<\/p><\/div>\n
29 August-1 September 1995<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p><\/div>\n
CONTENTS<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t<\/span>Paragraphs<\/u> Page<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>I.\t<\/span>INTRODUCTION\t<\/span> 1 – 12\t<\/span> 3<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>II.\t<\/span>OPENING STATEMENTS \t<\/span>13 – 24\t<\/span> 4<\/p><\/div>\n \t<\/span>III. \t<\/span>PANEL PRESENTATIONS\t<\/span>25 – 72\t<\/span> 7<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>IV.\t<\/span>CLOSING STATEMENTS \t<\/span>73 – 76\t<\/span>19<\/p><\/div>\n Annexes<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>II.\t<\/span>Communiqué\t\t\t<\/span>22<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>III.\t<\/span>Workshop reports\t\t<\/span>25<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>IV. \t<\/span>List of participants and observers \t<\/span>29<\/p><\/div>\n \n I. INTRODUCTION<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 1.\t<\/span>The twelfth United Nations International NGO Meeting and ninth 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 Vienna International Centre from 29 August to 1 September 1995.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 2.\t<\/span>The meeting was convened in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 49\/62 A and B of 14 December 1994, and was attended by 26 panelists and workshop leaders and by the representatives of 51 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 21 of them as observers. It was also attended by 37 Governments, 10 United Nations agencies and bodies, 3 intergovernmental organizations, 5 NGO coordinating committees, and a delegation of Palestine.<\/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 Mr. Kéba Birane Cissé (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee and head of the delegation; Mr. Ravan A. G. Farhadi (Afghanistan), Vice-Chairman;<\/p><\/div>\n Mr. Joseph Cassar (Malta), Rapporteur of the Committee; Mr. Alyaksandr Sychou (Belarus), and Mr. M. Nasser Al-Kidwa (Palestine).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 4.\t<\/span>The programme for the meeting was formulated by the Committee in consultation with members of the International Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ICCP) and of the European Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ECCP) at a preparatory meeting held in New York on 27 and 28 February 1995. The central theme of the combined meeting was "The 50th anniversary of the United Nations – Palestine, NGOs and the implementation of United Nations resolutions".<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 5.\t<\/span>At the opening meeting, participants were welcomed on behalf of the Government of Austria by Mr. Wolfgang Schallenberg, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A message from Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, was delivered by his representative, Mr. Giorgio Giacomelli, Under-Secretary-General and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Vienna. Mr. Cissé spoke in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, conveyed a message through his representative, Mr. Mohieddin Massoud. Statements were also made by Mr. Don Betz, ICCP Chairman, and Ms. Maria Gazi, Acting ECCP Chairman.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 6.\t<\/span>The invited experts made presentations in five panels, which were followed by discussion. In the first panel, entitled "Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ at its 50th anniversary and the question of Palestine", statements were made by Mr. Ilter Türkmen, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA), and Mr. M. Nasser Al-Kidwa, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 7.\t<\/span>The second panel was entitled "The present political situation". Statements were made by Mr. Victor Possouvaliouk, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation; Mr. Azmi Shuibi, Minister of Sports and Youth, Palestinian Authority; Mr. Abdulwahab Darawshe, Chairman of the Arab Democratic Party and member of the Knesset; Mr. Haim Baram, journalist and founding member of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace; and Mr. Taysir Arouri, professor of physics and mathematics at Bir Zeit University and member of the Palestinian National Council.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 8.\t<\/span>In the third panel, entitled "Elements of the final peace settlement, and obstacles to peace", statements on various sub-topics were made as follows: Mr. Ibrahim Matar, Deputy Director of American Near East Refugee Aid, spoke on the issue of Jerusalem and settlements; Mr. Elia Zureik, professor of sociology at Queen's College, Ontario, Canada, and member of the Palestinian delegation to the refugee working group of the multilateral peace talks, and Mr. Zakaria Abderahim, Director-General of the Department for Returnee Affairs of the PLO, spoke on the issue of refugees and the right of return; and Mr. Hashem Mahameed, head of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality and member of the Knesset, addressed the topic of Israeli violations of its commitments under the Declaration of Principles.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 9.\t<\/span>The fourth panel, entitled "Palestine update", consisted of briefings on social issues and living conditions facing the Palestinians on the ground. Mr. Taysir Arouri, professor of physics and mathematics at Bir Zeit University and member of the Palestine National Council, spoke on economic and social development issues. Dr. Imad Tarawiyeh, Director-General, Ministry of Health, Palestinian Authority, addressed health-related questions. A statement on education and children was made by Mr. George B. Sahhar, Director of Cultural Affairs in the Ministry of Education of the Palestinian Authority. Ms. Eileen Kuttab, lecturer in sociology and anthropology and coordinator of the Women's Studies Programme at Bir Zeit University, spoke on women's issues.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 10.\t<\/span>The fifth panel considered the issue of "Building the NGO network – NGO strategies for action". Statements were made by Mr. Fathi Darwish, Director in the Ministry of International Cooperation and Planning of the Palestinian Authority; Ms. Emma Murphy, lecturer in Middle Eastern politics, University of Durham, UK; Mr. José Elias, Chairman of the Federation of Palestinian Organizations in Chile and President of the University of San Andres; Mr. John Gee, Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding; Mr. Don Betz, ICCP Chairman; Ms. Maria Gazi, Acting ECCP Chairman; and Mr. Larry Ekin, Chairman of the North American Coordinating Committee for NGOs (NACC).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 11.\t<\/span>The participating NGOs adopted a communiqué reflecting their sense of the deliberations (see annex II).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 12.\t<\/span>In addition to the panels, a number of workshops were held concurrently for participants interested in developing specific action-oriented proposals. The workshop topics were linked to those of the panels. A demonstration in electronic skills was also organized. The workshop reports are contained in annex III.<\/p><\/div>\n II. OPENING STATEMENTS<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 13.\t<\/span>Mr. Wolfgang Schallenberg, Secretary-General of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, welcomed participants on behalf of his Government. He stated that his country and Government were following closely developments in the Middle East and welcomed the recent progress in negotiations by all parties. Expressing concern at actions by extremist forces opposed to the peace process, he reiterated Austria's utmost condemnation of any use of violence and terror by whatever side. His Government convinced that political solutions are possible, stood ready to support all efforts as well as to make its own contribution. The Madrid Conference and subsequent developments offered vast possibilities to make headway in the peace process for the sake of all the peoples of the region. As the economic and social dimension of peace would constitute proof of success, it was of the utmost importance to intensify efforts in rebuilding and reshaping the economy of the region and to establish a regional order based on mutual trust, respect and friendship. The negotiation process should result in the achievement of the internationally-supported right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 14.\t<\/span>Mr. Schallenberg stated that Austria had continued to display its particular interest in the Middle East by organizing events to increase understanding among the peoples of the region and by supporting the Palestinian people in its quest for self-determination and economic self-reliance. While progress had been made in negotiations, it was necessary to find solutions to all unresolved questions as quickly as possible. A special effort was needed to tackle successfully topics related to water procurement, land degradation, pollution of the sea, arms control and disarmament, and the question of Jerusalem. During this period of transition, the focus was shifting from political considerations to the problems of social and economic development and reconstruction. With this understanding, Austria wholeheartedly subscribed to the comprehensive engagement of the European Union in support of the Palestinian cause. The Union had taken over the coordinating role in the Palestinian elections and would welcome a Palestinian delegation to the forthcoming Barcelona conference launching the comprehensive Euro-Mediterranean partnership. Austria had provided assistance to the Palestinians in the fields of health, agriculture, housing and vocational training.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 15.\t<\/span>Mr. Schallenberg welcomed the role of NGOs in moving the political discussion forward and in increasing awareness of the need for political, economic and social reform both at the grass-roots level and on an international level. The NGO community had been the backbone of Palestinian social and economic life for many years and had paved the way for a smooth transition. Austria was of the view that all forums dealing with the Middle East, including NGO meetings on the question of Palestine, should adapt to the new realities and contribute to promoting dialogue and understanding and to furthering the peace process. Austria believed that consideration should be given to a substantial change of the existing mandate in order to best reflect such a new orientation. He called on the meeting to express unequivocal support for the peaceful changes on the basis of existing realities and thereby to enhance the shaping of the future structures of Palestine.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 16.\t<\/span>In his message, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, stressed the importance of the supportive role of NGOs in achieving United Nations objectives. NGO activities to promote a just settlement of the Palestine question and to assist in the social and economic development of the Middle East were particularly noteworthy. While there had been some unfortunate setbacks, the Middle East peace process had made progress owing to the determination of the parties to proceed in the implementation of the agreements reached and to work to resolve their differences through negotiations. The Secretary-General hoped that negotiations for the second stage of the peace process would soon prove successful and would lay the groundwork for the eventual settlement of all outstanding issues based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 17.\t<\/span>Expressing concern over acts of violence by those opposed to peace and stressing the need for tangible improvement in living conditions, the Secretary-General reaffirmed that the United Nations stood ready to contribute to an effective transition which could help build the foundations for a lasting peace. The work already undertaken by the Secretary-General's representative, Mr. Terje Rød Larsen, and the contributions made by the donor countries were gradually beginning to bear fruit and a number of improvements with regard to institution-building and the development of infrastructure had taken place. The network of NGOs and community-based organizations served vital functions in this respect; the necessary cooperation could be further promoted through the organization of meetings such as the one being held.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 18.\t<\/span>In his message, Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO and Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, called on all peace- and justice-loving forces in the world to increase and activate their support for, and assistance to, the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace based on the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. His message is reproduced in annex I.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 19.\t<\/span>Mr. Kéba Birane Cissé, Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, stressed that an important objective of the meeting was to develop a more effective role for NGOs in responding to the challenges posed by the developments in the peace process and the tasks of reconstruction and nation-building facing the Palestinians. Referring to the fact that the United Nations had been involved with the question of Palestine for most of its history, the Chairman stated that the General Assembly had reaffirmed repeatedly that the United Nations has a permanent responsibility with respect to the question until it was resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 20.\t<\/span>The Committee had recognized at an early stage the importance of the role of NGOs and had sought to involve them in its work and to devise ways to improve its cooperation with them. The changed situation since 1993 presented many new possibilities for concrete involvement on the ground and for solidarity action abroad. After informing participants about the objectives and programme of work of the Committee and the Division for Palestinian Rights in 1995, the Chairman stressed the continued importance that the Committee attached to its work with NGOs in promoting assistance to the Palestinians and in the defence of their fundamental rights during the period of transition.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 21.\t<\/span>In his statement, Mr. Don Betz, Chairman of the ICCP, recalled the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations, particularly with regard to human rights. The founders of the United Nations had declared that all peoples were endowed with certain inalienable rights. In the final analysis, peace had to be rooted firmly in law and designed to protect the powerless. As the Member States were considering the role to be played by the United Nations in the future, it was necessary to remind them that the question of Palestine had been on the Organization's agenda for almost fifty years and to press them to arrive at an honourable solution. Rather than accepting a peripheral role in the quest for peace in the Middle East, the United Nations and the NGOs should remind the international community persistently of its responsibility to resolve this issue justly. Peace in the Middle East could only be attained with the establishment of the State of Palestine.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 22.\t<\/span>Tracing the history of NGO efforts to establish a coordinated network on the question of Palestine, Mr. Betz stated that many NGOs were still active on this question and that advances in technology provided greatly improved possibilities for NGOs to remain in effective contact with one another and with a coordinating entity. He called for a revitalization of the NGO network, the nucleus of which should be composed of Palestinian NGOs together with their international counterparts active on the ground, and he asked for assistance by the Committee and the Division for Palestinian Rights in this endeavour. He proposed that such an effort be launched at the next symposium or meeting which, in his view, should be held in Jerusalem and be well prepared in advance.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 23.\t<\/span>Ms. Maria Gazi, Acting Chairman of the ECCP, noted that, since 1947, many resolutions had been adopted in favour of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East and confirming the right of the Palestinian people to establish its own independent State. However, Israel, with the support of the United States, had flouted those resolutions. Since the signing of the Declaration of Principles, many countries had withdrawn from the scene on the grounds that they did not want to interfere with the negotiating process between the parties. The ECCP had received such an answer when it had submitted a petition regarding Israel's non-implementation of the Declaration of Principles to the European Union Presidency. Referring to the slow pace of negotiations, the expansion of settlements, the closures of the territories and the situation of the Palestinian prisoners, she stated that the United Nations had an obligation to see that Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) were fully implemented and that other relevant resolutions were not disregarded or rescinded.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 24.\t<\/span>Ms. Gazi pointed out that more than 100 Palestinian NGOs had met in Jerusalem in preparation for the Vienna meeting in order to discuss many of the same issues among themselves and with representatives of the Palestinian Authority. However, many of them had not been able to come to Vienna because of lack of funds. She reiterated the view that the NGO event to be organized by the United Nations in 1996 should be held in Jerusalem. Alternatively, the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator in the occupied territories should be requested to convene such a meeting.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n III. <\/strong> PANEL PRESENTATIONS<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel I<\/strong>. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ at its 50th anniversary and the question of Palestine<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 25.\t<\/span>Mr. Ilter Türkmen<\/strong>, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA), said that, since its inception, the United Nations had been deeply involved with the fate of the Palestinian people. For over 45 years, it had provided systematic assistance to an entire people, assistance which was unprecedented in its history. He pointed out that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA ranked as one of the most successful humanitarian assistance operations in United Nations history. Throughout that period, it had provided essential education, health, and relief and social services to a Palestine refugee population that to date numbered more than 3 million people. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA's accomplishments represented a model response by the United Nations to an urgent and long-standing humanitarian crisis – the plight of the Palestine refugees.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 26.\t<\/span>Citing the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, the civil conflict in Lebanon in 1975, the Israeli invasion in Lebanon in 1982, and the intifada, he stressed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA had to cope with recurring hostilities in the region which generated new needs among the refugee population, necessitated emergency operations and altered the political landscape. Since the signing of the Declaration of Principles, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA had established a close working relationship with the Palestinian Authority with the understanding that Agency operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip would eventually be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. Coordination mechanisms had been established in the education, health, and relief and social services sectors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA's Peace Implementation Programme was a comprehensive investment programme designed to contribute to improving infrastructure and stabilizing socio-economic conditions and to making the results of the peace process felt at the local level. He said that the forthcoming relocation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA's headquarters from Vienna to the Gaza Strip was a demonstration of the commitment of the United Nations to the peace process, underlined its confidence in the Palestinian Authority and contributed to the economic development of the Gaza Strip.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 27.\t<\/span>Mr. Türkmen pointed out that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA and many NGOs cooperated jointly on a wide range of activities in the field, mainly in the relief and social services sectors, which had yielded positive results for the Agency, the NGOs and, of course, for the Palestine refugees. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA's operations also benefited from the close cooperation with a number of United Nations agencies. In conclusion, he stated that the establishment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA had secured for the Palestine refugees a good education for many generations of children, above-average health standards, job opportunities and special assistance for the poorest families. It had helped the Palestinians to maintain their identity and their culture and constituted an element of political and social stability in the area.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 28.\t<\/span>Mr. M. Nasser Al-Kidwa<\/strong>, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, emphasized that the United Nations had been dealing with the question of Palestine almost since its inception. Major resolutions had been adopted by the General Assembly in 1947 and 1948 deciding the partition of Palestine into two States and dealing with the issue of the refugees after the 1948 war. Later, the Assembly established Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA to provide relief to the refugees. The Security Council, for years, did not adopt any substantial resolutions; only after the 1967 war did the adoption of resolution 242 (1967) change that situation. At that time also, the General Assembly established a special committee to investigate Israeli practices. Since 1974, the Assembly had dealt with the Palestinian national dimension, inviting the PLO to participate in its work, recognizing the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, namely, the right to return, the right to self-determination and the right to independence and sovereignty. It established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The Security Council dealt with Israeli practices in the occupied territories, the question of Jerusalem, settlements, deportations and the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 29.\t<\/span>Mr. Al-Kidwa said that the concept of the permanent responsibility of the United Nations had evolved and that responsibility could not be ended until the question was resolved in all its aspects. Following the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the approach of the United Nations was determined by four principles: support for the peace process, affirmation of the permanent responsibility of the United Nations, reaffirmation of the United Nations position regarding the final settlement issues, and maintenance of the relevant machinery, including rejection of attempts to neutralize the General Assembly and its organs. Referring to the Palestinian Rights Committee, he stressed that its mandate should remain unchanged, but its programme of work and related issues might be subject to new ideas in order to provide for a broader participation of Member States from other geographic regions.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 30.\t<\/span>Mr. Al-Kidwa pointed out that twenty-seven Security Council resolutions and hundreds of General Assembly resolutions relating to this issue had been adopted in the fifty years of their existence, but only a very limited number of those resolutions had been implemented. However, those resolutions put very important brakes on Israeli plans and programmes, keeping the Israeli Government under legal and political pressure. In conclusion, he said that the United Nations had evolved into a truly universal organization of States, and he expressed the hope that it would live up to its responsibilities for a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine.<\/p><\/div>\n Panel II. <\/strong>The present political situation<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 31.\t<\/span>Mr. Victor Possouvaliouk<\/strong>, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, emphasized that the fifty-year history of the question of Palestine and the Middle East conflict in general reflected the difficult and controversial dynamics of the whole system of international relations since the Second World War. The region had become an area of flagrant violations of basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions had always contributed to and encouraged the shaping of a feasible solution and had led eventually to the shift from confrontation to the development of mutually acceptable pragmatic solutions. The end of the cold war was, however, the decisive factor in opening the way towards a settlement in the Middle East. At the same time, Arabs and Israelis drastically changed their stances and began practical work towards finding solutions.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 32.\t<\/span>In describing the different stages of the peace negotiations, Mr. Possouvaliouk noted that United Nations representation in that process had continuously widened, and he supported its involvement in the practical implementation of the agreements, such as the observation of elections, as well as in rendering and coordinating assistance to the Palestinian people. He stressed the importance of the multilateral groups discussing issues of regional concern: arms control, security, economic development, water resources management, protection of the environment, and refugees. The process initiated by the Casablanca conference in 1994 and to be reviewed at Amman in the fall of 1995 should establish a sound foundation for peace and good neighbourliness in the Middle East. He said that any successful progress of the dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis required tireless efforts of the co-sponsors and the whole international community to promote rapprochement of the parties and to respond promptly to critical situations. Any manifestation of extremism, terrorism in particular, created the danger of destabilization and deserved the strongest condemnation. The same was true for any unilateral actions.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 33.\t<\/span>Mr. Possouvaliouk commended the work of the Palestinian Authority and encouraged it to maintain a high degree of coordination with the Israeli side in solving daily problems. He stressed that Russia was directly involved in assistance programmes to the Palestinians, especially in equipping the Palestinian police forces and training them. In conclusion, he pointed out that the new realities in the region had also been reflected in the resolutions of the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly, and he expressed the hope that the major trends would be reflected in all corresponding United Nations documents. He commended the NGOs for mobilizing public opinion and encouraged them to promote, in particular, the humanitarian links between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. He expressed confidence in the irreversibility of the regional processes initiated in the Middle East.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 34.\t<\/span>Mr. Azmi Shuibi<\/strong>, Minister of Sports and Youth in the Palestinian Authority, said that the negotiations on a political settlement were in an acute crisis because of the continuous delays and the reluctance of the Israeli side to implement a number of points in the Declaration of Principles. The refusal to establish a safe corridor between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank had transformed the Gaza Strip into an island that was subject to lengthy closures. This had led to a deepening of the economic crisis, a rise in the unemployment rate and the obstruction of Palestinian civil institution-building. The refusal to withdraw the Israeli army from Hebron, because of a small group of settlers, and the continued expansion of settlements elsewhere obstructed a solution that would guarantee the future integrity of the Palestinian territory and freedom of movement for Palestinian citizens. Moreover, the Israeli Government continued to refuse to allow Palestinians living in Jerusalem to participate in the general elections. It tried to dictate the number of members of the elected council, which was an internal Palestinian issue, and refused to allow the United Nations to participate in the international supervision of those elections. Regarding the refugees, a quadripartite Palestinian-Israeli-Egyptian-Jordanian negotiating committee had been formed to deal with the issue; however, after two years not one refugee had returned. Although negotiations on Jerusalem should start in May 1996, the Israeli side was taking arbitrary and unilateral measures with the aim of Judaizing and isolating the city, denying Palestinians access to it, including access to holy places.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 35.\t<\/span>Mr. Shuibi stated that the transfer of civil authority and responsibilities to the Palestinian side was complicated by the latent desire of Israel to retain control over the resources of the Palestinian people, such as land and water, as well as over administration and trade. The settlers, whose numbers did not exceed 2 per cent of the Palestinian population, enjoyed 80 per cent of the Palestinian water. He concluded by saying that the proclaimed aim of the Palestinian people had been and was to exercise their right to self-determination, to set up their independent State with East Jerusalem as its capital, side by side with the State of Israel, in a society where justice, equality and democracy prevailed. <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 36.\t<\/span>Mr. Abdulwahab Darawshe<\/strong>, Chairman of the Arab Democratic Party and member of the Knesset, expressed concern that the Israeli Government would hand over to the Palestinians only parts of the West Bank and Gaza in order to keep control over territory, resources and overall security. It would try to maintain control over the roads, requiring special permits to travel between Palestinian cantons. This could be the cause for the next Palestinian uprising, endangering the whole peace process. Palestinians living in Israel feared that the current peace process was only a tool for Israel to end the Arab boycott and to establish direct bilateral and trade relations with each of the Arab countries. He emphasized that it was essential to eliminate military control over the West Bank and Gaza and to dismantle settlements for preparing for the next stage of economic development. It was also essential that the settlers be controlled by the Israeli Government. <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 37.\t<\/span>Mr. Darawshe pointed out the significance for the peace process of the upcoming national elections in Israel. If the center-left government, which included the Labour Party, Meretz, Hadash and the Arab Democratic Party, did not succeed in returning to power, the whole peace process would collapse. If the Arab Democratic Party could unify the Arab public in Israel, which comprised 18 per cent of the population, under the umbrella of one list, it would be able to multiply its representation and influence Israeli political positions more significantly. He recalled how the Arab Democratic Party, which represented the Palestinian minority in Israel, had recently managed to prevent the Israeli Government from confiscating Palestinian land in East Jerusalem. <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 38.\t<\/span>Mr. Darawshe called on all countries to establish diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority, thus recognizing the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and statehood. Many countries had already opened representative offices in Gaza. Also, despite the generous pledges for assistance from the international community, the actual transfer of funds was made very difficult, jeopardizing the realization of projects for infrastructure development. <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 39.\t<\/span>Mr. Haim Baram<\/strong>, journalist with the Jerusalem weekly Kol ha-Ir<\/u> and founding member of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, said that the second stage of the Oslo Agreement still awaited full implementation because the Israeli Government insisted that all the Israeli settlements would continue to exist. Furthermore, the security of the settlers had become a major issue. More Palestinian land had to be expropriated in order to build special roads that would circumvent Palestinians towns and villages, for the exclusive use of the settlers. In his view, the massive investment in such programmes meant that the Israeli Government had no intention of uprooting those settlements in the foreseeable future. The settlements constituted a lethal time bomb that could undermine the entire peace process and encourage extremists in both camps. The 130,000 settlers could be divided into two categories: ideologists, who based their claim to the occupied West Bank on the Bible; and ordinary Israelis, from the poor strata of the population, most of them Oriental Jews, who had been sent to the occupied territories by various Israeli governments, attracted by the low prices of housing. Most of them would return to Israel if they were given an alternative.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 40.\t<\/span>Mr. Baram said that, since its establishment in 1991, the Labour Government had sought new ways to exploit the political weakness of the PLO. Yasser Arafat had fulfilled his promises and was making the most extreme concessions. The Israelis, aided by the United States, were increasingly successful in dictating their terms, aided by the United States. Israel had gained much and given very little. Israel still coveted, quite openly, at least 35 per cent of the West Bank, opposed the establishment of a Palestinian State and insisted on maintaining the illegal occupation and the Israelization of East Jerusalem. The massive attempts to erase the Arab character of East Jerusalem continued with impunity. The international community should intervene in order to redress the balance in favour of the weaker side. Without some independent European foreign policy, the peace process would collapse. The minimal conditions for peace should be met, such as the establishment of an independent Palestinian State alongside Israel, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the removal of the Israeli settlements.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 41.\t<\/span>Mr. Taysir Arouri<\/strong>, professor of physics and mathematics at Bir Zeit University and member of the Palestine National Council, recalled the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War when conditions were imposed on the defeated States without laying a solid foundation for permanent peace. That led, in turn, to the Second World War. As regards the Middle East, he said that for the first time since the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli conflict, there was a historic and realistic opportunity to create peace, if the current negotiations could lead to stability in the Middle East. In his view, the recent agreements between the PLO and Israel were short-sighted, did not establish a stable peace and created conditions for the development of extremism and fanaticism.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 42.\t<\/span>Mr. Arouri stated that a real peace process should address three major issues: Palestinian national rights, economic development and democracy. Implementation of national rights, including independence, meant the withdrawal of Israeli forces, in compliance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967). However, so far, withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was restricted to 68 per cent of its area, with 32 per cent of the area remaining for 1,500 settlers. As regards the redeployment of Israeli forces in the West Bank, Israel did not want to apply the second part of the Oslo Agreement. It aimed to destroy the geographical unity of the West Bank, isolating its various areas and transforming the settlements on the West Bank into strips and connected areas, in preparation for their annexation by Israel at a later date, together with the definition of new borders for the West Bank. The Oslo Agreement postponed crucial issues such as Jerusalem, borders and the future of settlements to the final status negotiations on condition that neither of the two parties would take any steps that would prejudice the ultimate solution. Israel's policy and the practical measures with regard to Jerusalem had violated those pledges. East Jerusalem had been isolated from the other areas of the West Bank for over two years. The question of Jerusalem, together with the fate and future of the land and water of the West Bank, i.e. settlement and land confiscation, should be the major factors in judging the peace process. With regard to economic development, he emphasized that the confidence of the Palestinians in a peaceful future could not be isolated from an effective economic policy. The Cairo Agreement, including the Protocol on Economic Relations (see A\/49\/180), failed to address in a proper, practical and pragmatic manner the results of the situation imposed by the Israeli occupation of over 27 years, the most important of which was the high degree of subordination of the Palestinian economy and infrastructure to Israel. Wages earned by Palestinian workers in the occupied territories represented only one third of the gross national product. Unemployment had risen sharply in the past two years and the standard of living had dropped rapidly. A solution was closely connected to democracy. The creation of a climate for investment was the most important task. This primarily required democracy, including the rule of modern laws, as well as the existence of stable democratic institutions capable of ensuring security and protection of the law.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel III. <\/strong>Elements of the final peace settlement, and obstacles to peace<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Jerusalem and settlements<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 43.\t<\/span>Mr. Ibrahim Matar<\/strong>, Deputy Director of American Near East Refugee Aid, said that shortly after the June 1967 war, the Jewish State began a series of measures intended not only to maintain control of Jerusalem, but also to change its demographic character, by expanding its boundaries threefold. Since 1967, 6,500 acres of mostly private land had been confiscated from Palestinians in the annexed areas of East Jerusalem. The last confiscation in 1995 was suspended after the Arab Democratic Party in Israel threatened to drop its support for the present Labour Government. With the completion of the settlement of Ramat Shufat, the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem would be encircled and flanked by the Jewish fortresses. The 155,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem would also be outnumbered, as the number of Jewish settlers was to reach 180,000 by the end of 1995. In addition, the Israelis had enlarged the Jewish quarter inside the walled Old City of Jerusalem, by destroying over 135 homes in the old Moroccan quarter, confiscating 30 acres of Palestinian property and evicting another 5,000 Palestinians from the Moslem quarter. As a result, the Jewish quarter of the Old City was today three times larger than it was in 1948. It was estimated that the market value of the seized Palestinian property exceeded $1 billion. <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 44.\t<\/span>Mr. Matar stated out that the Israeli colonization of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights was not an irreversible process. In the past, as a prerequisite for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Jewish settlements in the Sinai had been dismantled by the Israeli Likud Government. The Security Council had called for the dismantling of the settlements, and the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibited the occupying power from establishing civilian settlements. In addition, all relevant General Assembly resolutions had pointed to the illegality of Jewish settlements. Since 1978, succeeding United States administrations had regarded Jewish settlements as illegal and an obstacle to peace. The present United States Administration had identified the settlements problem as one which complicated the negotiations and had a very negative impact on the Palestinians as well as in the wider Arab world. The Israeli High Court ruled, in one of the most important cases related to the issue of settlements, that Jewish settlements were temporary and by implication should be dismantled when the Israeli occupation ended.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 45.\t<\/span>Mr. Matar also stated that the Palestinian negotiators should further require Israel to pay reparations for all the destruction and damage it had caused to Palestinian villages and crops. Three villages in the West Bank and three communities in the Jordan Valley had been destroyed and replaced by Jewish settlements. The reparations should also cover the cost of the use of Palestinian private and state property and water resources by Jewish settlements for the past 29 years of occupation. He concluded by saying that settlements remained a key factor in the success or failure of the peace process. For the Palestinians, settlements would destroy any hope for a viable future Palestinian state.<\/p><\/div>\n 2. <\/strong>Refugees – right of return<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 46.
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p><\/div>\n