On 11th April Tom Hurndall - a young photographer observing and recording the work of a peace group in Gaza and the activities of the Israeli army was shot in the head by the Israeli army in the town of Rafah at the border between Gaza and Egypt. He currently lies in a deep coma in hospital in Saroka Hospital in Beer Sheva - Israel and has suffered severe brain damage from which he is not expected to recover. A campaign to raise the money to repatriate Tom (see www.tomhurndall.co.uk ) commenced just over a week ago and an overwhelming response from the public has culminated in Tom flying back to London tomorrow afternoon 29th May 2003. He will be arriving at Heathrow Airport Terminal 1, via EL Al Air - flight number LY315 at approximately 13.35. He will be transported by special ambulance directly to the Intensive Care Unit at The Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, Hampstead, London, NW3. Tom's mother Jocelyn, father Anthony and brother (12 years) Freddie, will be accompanying him on the plane and will travel separately to the Hospital where a press conference will be held. The press conference will present the families experiences and the results of their own enquiries into the shooting of Tom. They will additionally reveal the controversial details of an internal Israeli Defence Force report presented to them at the British Embassy last week. They will discuss their demands for a full independent judicial inquiry and the invitation that they have received to meet with the Foreign Secretary - Jack Straw on their return. Press conference details:
The Marsden Room,
Time: 3.30pm Please go to the Main Entrance of the Hospital where a media representative will provide directions. If you require any additional assistance such as arrangements for live feed etc please contact Philipa Hutchins - Media Manager Royal Free Hospital on 0207 830 2963. For private interviews with the family or any additional information please contact Carl Arrindell - Family Spokesperson on Tel: 01634 831 975 or Mobile: 07799 768 768. Email: carrindell@btinternet.com Read More...
By: UN Women
Date: 09/03/2019
×
My Rights, Our Power: A Joint Campaign Launched in Palestine to Raise Awareness on Women’s Fundamental Human Rights
1_March 2019, Ramallah – On the occasion of the International Women’s Day (8 March), a week-long joint campaign “My Rights, Our Power” was launched today in Palestine to raise awareness on women’s fundamental human rights. The joint effort, with participation from over 30 national and international partners from civil society organizations, media outlets, and international development agencies, targets youth, women, and men in various geographic areas in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza to promote women’s human rights in Palestine. The campaign comes at a crucial moment when the anticipated adoption of the Family Protection Bill is at a standstill, raising concerns among national and international stakeholders about the consequences of such delay on safeguarding women’s fundamental human rights in Palestine. According to the Palestine report of the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), nearly one in five Palestinian men (17 percent) surveyed said they had perpetrated act of physical intimate partner violence against female partners, while 21 per cent of women surveyed reported having experienced such violence. “Family violence, usually committed by a family member who has social or economic power over others in the family, causes enormous pain and suffering to all members of the family, especially the women and children,” said a spokesperson from civil society, which has vigorously initiated the development of the Family Protection Bill (FPB), and has strongly pushed its adoption since 2004. “The violation of women’s human rights manifests in various levels and should be also understood from economic, cultural, and social aspects,” the spokesperson added, highlighting the lack of opportunities and freedom of choice, as well as limited access to justice and services that women in Palestine still experience. The joint campaign aims to raise awareness of the general public, especially youth, women, and men on women’s fundamental rights in line with international standards and embedded in the Family Protection Bill draft endorsed by the previous Cabinet at the end of December 2018. Five key messages, addressing women’s right to a life free of violence, right to achieve justice and seek help in case of violation of such life, as well as the right to equal opportunities and right to make one’s own choices, will be distributed through various channels such as radio, social media, helpline (121), outreach activities, and on-site events. The closing event of the joint campaign will take place on 8 March in Jerusalem and will celebrate women’s achievements using TED-style talks, followed by art performances. “My Rights, Our Power” joint campaign is part of the global International Women’s Day 2019 campaign under the theme of “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change”. The theme focuses on innovative ways in which we can advance gender equality and the empowerment of women, particularly in the areas of social protection systems, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure, echoing the theme of the 63rd session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 63) taking place in New York on 11-22 March 2019. The participating organizations of the “My Rights, Our Power” are (in alphabetical order): 17 Palestinian women’s organizations represented by Al-Muntada (coalition), British Consulate-General, Business Women Forum, CARE International, Consulate General of Sweden, Consulate General of Belgium, EUPOL COPPS, EU Representative Office, FAO, General Union of Palestinian Women, Government of Japan, CowaterSogema/GROW Project, International Labour Organization, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, Ma’an TV, MIFTAH, Netherlands Representative Office, Nisaa FM, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development, Palestinian Family Planning and Protection Association, Representative Office of Canada, Representative Office of Denmark, SAWA, Sawasya II, Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, Sports for Life, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Representative Office of Norway, UNDP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNOPS, UN Women, Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, Women’s Studies Center. For more information, please contact Eunjin Jeong at UN Women via eunjin.jeong@unwomen.org or 059 2321 308, Majd Beltaji at UNESCO via m.beltaji@unesco.org or 059 4501 506.
By: Dr. Riyad Mansour
Date: 08/11/2017
×
Statement of Ambassador Dr. Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, before the United Nations Security Council Open Debate on Women, Peace and Security, 27 October 2017
Mr. President, We thank France for organizing this important meeting and extend our appreciation to the Chef de Cabinet of the Secretary General, the Executive Director of UN Women, the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security and the Secretary-General of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie for their efforts and important briefings. The issue before us is of relevance not only for half the planet, but to all, given the role and contribution of women in the fields of peace and security and the untapped potential that could be unleashed by mainstreaming their participation. Since the adoption by consensus of resolution 1325 by this Council, a lot has happened, and yet we are still far from the goal of full and equal participation, including in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and from ensuring the protection and empowerment of women. Gender equality and non-discrimination remain prerequisites for the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of this organization and all of our lofty, collective commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The State of Palestine welcomes the Secretary General’s report and his commitment to implementing the women and peace and security agenda, including by placing gender at the centre of his prevention platform and surge in diplomacy. We appreciate all efforts by the UN in this regard, including by UN Women, OHCHR and UNDP, notably in the field of human rights, capacity building, employment and rule of law. We urge UN bodies, notably those operating in Palestine, including the Special Representative, to intensify their engagement and collaboration with women organizations. Mr. President, I wish to highlight some of Palestine’s own important efforts in this regard. The Palestinian women’s movement is one of the oldest and strongest in the region and beyond, with institutional and representative structures established as early as the 19th century. Within the PLO, the General Union of Palestinian Women was among the first unions to be established. A coordination of women frameworks within PLO political parties and other organizations has also been established as the “Women’s Affairs Technical Committee” in the aftermath of the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference. There have been many achievements thereafter. Among them: In 2012, Palestine inaugurated a High-Level National Committee for the implementation of resolution 1325, led by the Ministry of Women Affairs in partnership with relevant Ministries and NGOs. In 2016, the State of Palestine was among the 68 countries and areas that adopted a National Action Plan on women, peace and security. This Action Plan (2017-2019), adopted by both the Government and civil society organizations, identifies three primary objectives: 1. ensuring protection for women and girls both domestically and in the face of the Israeli occupation; 2. ensuring accountability through national and international mechanisms, with a particular focus on crimes and violations committed by the occupation; and 3. furthering women’s political participation in decision making at the national and international level. The State of Palestine also joined core IHL and human rights instruments, including CEDAW, without reservations. Women’s participation and empowerment are also important and cross-cutting objectives in the context of the National Policy Agenda (2017-2022). We are, however, conscious that, despite all these efforts, much more work remains to be done. Only in 2009 was a women elected to the highest executive body of the PLO. Quotas are still decisive in allowing women’s election to Parliament and local councils. And while women organizations were among the strongest advocates of national reconciliation, they have been unfairly absent from reconciliation talks. The relevant legislative framework applicable in Palestine is also outdated and must be revised to ensure consistency with Palestine’s international commitments and obligations and avail women the protection and rights they are entitled to and the opportunities they deserve. Mr. President, The Palestinian women’s movement since its establishment over a century ago pursued the struggle on two fronts – the struggle for the independence of Palestine and the struggle for women’s rights and empowerment – a dual struggle the movement continues to pursue to this day. The Israeli occupation remains the main source of the violations of our women’s rights and their vulnerability and violence against their person. We have repeatedly called for protection of the Palestinian people, especially women and children. We have also called for accountability, a key element of resolution 1325, the first resolution to address the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women, as the only way to put an end to violations and crimes. While Palestine stands ready to do its part to advance women rights and the role of women in the fields of peace and security, it is clear that the enjoyment of these rights in our country necessitates ending the Israeli occupation. We will thus continue to work for an end of the occupation and true progress on the path to independence, justice and peace, with the equal and full involvement of women, leading to an independent State of Palestine ensuring human rights for all its citizens without discrimination.
By: Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325
Date: 20/10/2016
×
Seeking Justice: Statement by the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325 on the visit of the delegation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor’s Office on 9-10 October 2016 to Palestine
On the occasion of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office to Palestine, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325, which consists of twelve different Palestinian women’s organisations, is urging the Prosecutor’s Office to take concrete actions towards investigating war crimes committed against Palestinians. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom remains deeply concerned with the complete impunity of Israeli war crimes and firmly supports the Coalition’s call for a just accountability mechanism for Palestinian victims. WILPF also calls on the international community to recognise and fully support Palestinian women’s organisations substantial role in paving the paths to justice, accountability and peace. Read the statement of the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325 below. We, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325,welcome the visit of the delegation of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office as a step in the right direction. But we are deeply disappointed that the purpose of this visit was restricted to preliminary examination, while Palestinian victims of Israeli war crimes, including women, continue to suffer and urgently await justice and an end to Israel impunity. We do not understand the decision to exclude the Gaza Strip from this visit, when Gaza has been the site of the most war crimes and where women have been most systematically impacted by Israeli collective punishment policies; a prolonged imposed siege and a severe humanitarian deterioration resulting from Israeli military aggressions . We are further disappointed that women who have been systematically impacted, and their women’s organisations, have been excluded from the delegation’s agenda. We call upon all future delegations of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office to include on their agenda meetings with women’s organisations and women who have experienced direct and indirect impacts of Israeli crimes. We, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325, have seen in UNSCR 1325, 2242, and other UN Resolutions a commitment to hold the Israeli perpetrators accountable for their war crimes. We look to the ICC as the most important mechanism to end impunity for all war crimes committed, finally bringing justice for the Palestinian people. Yet, we are very concerned that the preliminary examinations will be an endless process. Therefore, we urge, Ms. Fatou Bensouda, the Prosecutor of the ICC, to conclude the preliminary examination and move to investigations into Israeli war crimes, bringing justice to Palestinians. We have paid the price of non-accountability and impunity of Israeli war crimes for too long. “Delaying justice is justice denied.” Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325: The General Union of Palestinian Women (GUPW), the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development (PWWSD), MIFTAH, Filastinyat, Women Media and Development (TAM), Women Stu Dies Center, Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling (WACLAC), the National, YWCA of Palestine, Center for Women’s Legal Research and Consulting (CWLRC), the Culture and Free thought Association(CWLRC) and Women’s Affairs Center (GWAC). Occupied Palestine October 11, 2016
By the Same Author
Date: 15/02/2007
×
We Palestinians Will Honor Our Word
I know of no way to measure suffering, no mechanism to quantify pain. All I know is that we Palestinians are not children of a lesser God. Had I been a Jew or a Gypsy, I would consider the Holocaust to be the most atrocious event in history. Had I been a Native American, it would be the arrival of the European settlers and the subsequent near-total extermination of the indigenous population. Had I been an African American, it would be slavery in previous centuries and apartheid in the last. Had I been an Armenian, it would be the Turkish massacre. I happen to be a Palestinian, and for Palestinians the most atrocious event in history is what we call the Nakba, the catastrophe. Humanity should consider all the above as morally unacceptable, all as politically inadmissible. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not comparing the Nakba to the Holocaust. Each catastrophe stands on its own, and I do not like to indulge in comparative martyrology or a hierarchy of tragedies. I only mention our respective traumas in order to illustrate that we each bring to the table our own particular history. The fact that the accords reached last week in Mecca between Hamas and Fatah were met with a variety of reactions, ranging from warm to cautious to skeptical, makes it imperative to revisit and learn the lessons of the diplomatic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Time and again the three “no’s” of the Khartoum summit in 1967 — no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel — are invoked as proof conclusive of Arab intransigence toward Israel. Such a claim, however, conveniently forgets that Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and Jordan accepted United Nations Security Council resolution 242 just months after the Khartoum meeting. Also forgotten is that Syria, after the October War in 1973 — the purpose of which, it should be remembered, was to reactivate a dormant diplomatic process and to capture the attention of American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger — accepted U.N. resolution 338, which incorporated resolution 242. Ignored, too, is that the entire Arab world endorsed a peace plan put forth by the then-Saudi crown prince Fahd at a 1982 summit in Fez, Morocco, as well as unanimously backed the initiative put forth by then-Saudi crown prince Abdallah in Beirut in 2002. For the Palestinian national movement, the October War in 1973 was a demarcation line in strategic thinking. It is then that we concluded that there was no military solution to the conflict. Until then we had advocated a unitary, democratic, bicultural, multiethnic and pluri-confessional state in Mandatory Palestine. After 1973, a pragmatic coalition within the Palestine Liberation Organization emerged. Composed of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, Nayef Hawatmeh’s Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and As Sa’iqa, the Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba’ath Party, the coalition demanded not absolute justice but rather possible justice within the framework of a two-state solution. The fact that As Sa’iqa belonged to that school of thought, it is worth noting, is proof that Damascus can be a constructive player in the region if properly engaged and its concerns addressed. Syria is not necessarily the eternal spoiler that needs to use the Lebanese theater or the Palestinian scene in order to remind everyone of its presence. Led by this pragmatic coalition, the PLO was ready for a historical compromise as far back as 1974. It was not the rejectionist player, as many have labeled it, but rather the rejected party until the Oslo peace talks in 1993. Throughout its presence in Lebanon, the PLO aimed to remain a military factor so as to be accepted as a diplomatic actor. I have told my many Israeli interlocutors that I believe that the Israeli posture in peace negotiations was to expect a diplomatic outcome that would reflect Israeli power and intransigence, American alignment toward Israeli preferences, declining Russian influence, European abdication, Arab impotence and what they hoped to be Palestinian resignation. It is this attitude that has resulted in having a durable peace process instead of a lasting and permanent peace. Peace and security will stem not from territorial aggrandizement but from regional acceptance — and make no mistake about it, we Palestinians are the key to regional acceptance of Israel. For years now, the Arab world from Morocco to Muscat has been ready to recognize the existence of Israel if it withdraws back from its expanded 1967 borders. The perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is due not to the Arab rejection of Israeli existence, but to the Israeli rejection of Arab acceptance. The absence of a credible diplomatic avenue has allowed for the emergence and the strengthening of radical movements. The electoral defeat of Fatah in January 2006 was caused by a plurality of factors, not least of them the fact that Fatah became identified with negotiations and a peace process that was non-existent for the last six years and totally unconvincing during the years preceding. To the Palestinians, the last 15 years of “peacemaking” were years during which we witnessed the expansion of the occupation — with the number of settlers doubling — not a withdrawal from the occupation. Now, however, there is a chance to move beyond this history. As a result of the agreement reached last week in Mecca, the Palestinian government will be more representative than at any period before. The new foreign minister, Ziad Abu Amr, both enjoys the confidence of Hamas and is a political friend of Mahmoud Abbas — who as PLO chairman is charged with negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian people and as P.A. president has prerogative over the conduct of foreign affairs. Both Fatah and Hamas are in favor of a cease-fire, for which they can now ensure disciplined Palestinian adherence — especially if it is reciprocated by the Israeli side and extended to the West Bank, where alas we have recently witnessed an escalation in assassinations and arrests. And in Mecca, Hamas and Fatah agreed that the Palestinian government will honor all agreements signed by the PLO, will abide by all the resolutions of previous Arab summits and will base its activity on international law. The term “honor,” rest assured, has as much a ring of nobility to it in Arabic — if not more — as it does in any other language. A territory that was occupied in 1967 in less than six days can also be evacuated in six days — so that Israelis can rest on the seventh, and we can all finally engage in the fascinating journey of nation-building and economic recovery. Afif Safieh is head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission to the United States.
Date: 21/07/2006
×
The American National Interest
The following is a letter by the head of the PLO Mission to the US, Mr. Afif Safieh. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan is known to have said that "an election year is rarely America's finest hour". I do not remember in what context he made that statement and I am sure he would not have been happy at my using it in my way but we obviously are in an "election year". Throughout the years, some politicians have grown accustomed in campaigning more in Tel Aviv than in Tennessee, more in Beir Sheba than in Boston, more in Jerusalem than in Georgia but this time they seem not to have well calibrated their message because American public opinion is showing signs of awakening to the human tragedies tormenting the Middle East. As an indicator, The Washington Post undertook an on-line poll three weeks ago that revealed that 64% disapproved the Israeli incursions in Gaza and only 36% approved those incursions. I personally believe that AIPAC, the official pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, in spite of all appearances, is no more in its golden era and that for 4 reasons:
The last two days, as though somebody has pushed a button somewhere, all American newspapers, national or local, have been flooded with op-ed pieces defending Israeli behavior, explaining how Israel has regained its "utility and function" in American strategy in defense of "Western Civilization" and advocating a delay in any diplomatic initiative to give more time to the Israeli army. In this moment in particular, diplomacy should not be allowed to be "the continuation of war by other means". On the eve of a trip to the region by the Secretary of State, one would hope that the following elements will be taken in consideration:
In our contemporary world, non-alignment should be what characterizes American foreign policy. America is a fascinating society, a nation of nations. It is the world en miniature. By aligning itself on one belligerent actor in a regional conflict, the USA not only offends, alienates and antagonizes all the other players but it also antagonizes and ghettoizes a domestic component of its own social fabric: the Arab-American and the Muslim Americans. One can only hope that Dr. Rice's visit to the region will be a departure from decades of the "self-inflicted impotence" of the only remaining superpower and that she will set ambitious goals for her diplomatic initiative. America showing leadership and "waging peace" will rally the world around it, those who belong to "western civilization" and all the others too. Decision-makers in Washington have always had a choice between a foreign policy that will make American loved and respected around the world or a foreign policy that will make it feared and hated. We in the Arab world have no problem with American values and American principles. All we yearn for is to see America reconcile its power and its principles. Dr. Rice, it is in your power today to make America loved and respected. Bon Voyage.
Date: 13/08/2005
×
Anatomy of a Mission London 1990 -2005
(This is a transcript of the unwritten lecture delivered by Afif Safieh the Palestinian General Delegate to the U.K. at Chatham House/The Royal Institute for International Affairs on Wednesday July 13-2005). I feel privileged to have been invited to address such a distinguished audience at such a prestigious forum. Speaking today, almost a week before the end of my official duties in London, I cannot but recall that I started my assignment in London with a Chatham House lecture in September 1990 when I had to step in at the last moment to replace Hani Al Hassan in a session chaired by the late Sir John Moberly. Let me first give a short history of the Palestinian diplomatic representation in London. Location: From the early 1970s until 1986 the Palestinian diplomatic representation was part of the Arab League Office in 52 Green Street. In 1986 it moved to independent premises in South Kensington at 4 Clareville Grove. For austerity measures, in 1996 we moved again to a smaller but more modern office in a lesser neighbourhood-Hammersmith at 5 Galena Road. Appellation: From the early 1970s until 1988 the mission was called PLO Information Office. Then in 1988, because of our peace initiative based on our acceptance of the two state solution, and in agreement with her Majesty’s government, the Delegation was upgraded to PLO General Delegation. In 1993, just after the Oslo breakthrough, the delegation was renamed Palestinian General Delegation, representing the PLO and the PNA at the same time. We were then authorised to fly the Palestinian flag which we did at a very moving ceremony attended by William Ehrman the head of NENAD the Near East/North Africa Department on behalf of the Foreign Office and the members of the Council of Arab Ambassadors. Representation: The first PLO representative was the late Said Hamami, from the early seventies until he was assassinated in 1978. I never met Said but he was undeniably a very effective representative and I still feel the impact of his passage in London. He was succeeded by Nabil Ramlawi, from 1978 to 1983, who was then transferred to the U.N. in Geneva. He is now in our Foreign Ministry in charge of the unit for diplomatic training. Faisal Oweida followed from 1983 till 1990 and from here was transferred to Austria. Unfortunately he died two years ago from cancer. I am the 4th Palestinian representative in London. I do not know if there were any assassination attempts. Any way, if there were, they passed totally unnoticed by me. Concerning my health, yes I suffer from diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure and I am over weight and a chain smoker. My doctor, every time she sees me, tells me: “Bravo Afif for still being with us”. Size: In 1990, I inherited an office with 12 employees including the secretary, the receptionist and the driver. Then, because of budgetary constraints, the number was brought down to five, to rise again gradually up to 8 . In those 15 years, I have dealt with 3 Prime Ministers: Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Tony Blair. With 4 Secretaries of State: Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, Robin Cook and now Jack Straw. With ten Ministers of State: William Waldgrave, Douglas Hogg, Sir Jeremy Hanley-during the Conservative period, then with the late Derek Fatchett, Peter Hain, Brian Wilson, Geoffry Hoon, Ben Bradshaw, Baroness Symons and now with Dr. Kim Howells. During these 15 years I have arranged and organised 10 Arafat visits to London, three of them mainly connected to meetings with Madeleine Albright. We have more recently arranged a visit for our Prime Minister Abu Ala’a last year and this year for President Mahmoud Abbas for the London conference on the 1st March. The upgrading was gradual. Landing in town in September 1990, it was prohibited for me to have any ministerial level contacts. Since then I have become familiar to 10 Downing Street, to the Foreign Office and to Westminster-Whitehall in general. Christ’l and I started being invited to the Tea Garden Party by Her Majesty the Queen, first with the crowd, then we were upgraded to the diplomatic tent, which is for junior diplomats and then to the Royal tent itself. We have been invited to a Royal Banquet in Buckingham Palace for a visiting Head of State. We are also yearly invited to the Trooping the colours, the Lord Mayor’s Banquet and to Ascot, only to discover that I am not particularly enamoured with horse racing. Without forgetting the annual invitation to the prestigious Diplomatic Dinner by De La Rue who hope to be contracted to print one day, hopefully soon, our national currency. Job Description: What does a Palestinian representative do? We have all the responsibilities, burdens and expectations of an embassy. Yet we neither have all the privileges nor the immunities nor the financial capabilities of a normal embassy. We are still a national liberation movement, still struggling for independence and statehood. How do I define my job description? Wherever I am posted , I consider that there are 10 layers of work that we have to handle:-
This in addition to the regular reports to the leadership and some consular duties. We neither issue passports nor visas but we authenticate documents, power of attorney etc… In moments of optimism we do have some commercial duties with companies consulting us about potential for economic transactions. Let me go through those different “layers” of work: 1- The government: At the very beginning it was mainly the Foreign Office and at a sub ministerial level. Now it is the Foreign Office at all levels, but beyond it, we have to deal with many other departments, including the Prime Minister’s office and different Ministries. 2-Parliament: I really gave great importance to my dealings and interactions with both Houses of Parliament. I was invited three times for hearings by the Select Committee for Foreign Affairs, the first time in April 1991. In the House of Commons we have 5 institutional interlocutors and channels of communication. The first is CAABU, the Council for the Advancement of Arab British Understanding that has a triple chairmanship now from the three major parties: John Austin, Crispin Blunt and Colin Breed. The second is the Britain/Palestine all party parliamentary group, that was presided over first by Ernie Ross then by Dr. Phyllis Starkey and now by Richard Burden. Then we have the Labour Middle East Council, the Conservative Middle East Council -which was created by Lord Gilmour and Sir Dennis Walters, then was presided over by Nicholas Soames - and the Liberal Middle East Council that was presided over by Lord David Steel and now by Sir Menzies Campbell. 3- Relations with political parties take place throughout the year and each time I have a dignitary or a delegation, I make sure that they meet the leadership of the opposition parties as well. But the busiest period is during the season of the annual party conferences in late September and early October. I usually have one or more fringe meetings. Those fringe meetings are extremely important because they help shape perceptions, policies, projections and predictions. 4- The Diplomatic Corps : In a lesser capital, relations within the Diplomatic Corps are more horizontal: a bridge club, a tennis players network, frequent gastronomic trips from The Hague to Brussels etc… Such leisurely pursuits are unthinkable in London. Because of the intensity of bilateral relations, the volume of visiting delegations, ministerial, parliamentary etc, the size of the community, relations are more of a vertical nature. But the Council of Arab Ambassadors remains an extremely important forum and the resulting joint activities are of great value. I have always drawn the attention of our British interlocutors to the exceptional importance of this Council composed “of former ministers and those who never wanted to be ministers”. 5- The Media:Beside the importance of the British media and its pool of sophisticated and knowledgeable journalistic community and the heavy presence of international media outfits, London is also the media capital of the Arab world. It hosts all the Pan Arab dailies distributed from Morocco to Mascat, as well as many weeklies and monthlies, without forgetting the proliferating T.V. satellite stations many of whom were born in London or have their second most important offices located here. 6- The N.G.O’s : This is the largest “layer” and to which I devoted much time. It includes Churches, trade unions, university campuses, think tanks, human rights institutions, solidarity groups etc… On the lecturing circuit, this is the most demanding category. To take the Churches as an example, I have had the privilege to address the Annual General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and of the United Reform Church, to lecture twice at Wesley Chapel of the Methodist Church, stayed regularly in touch with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Head of the Roman Catholic Church. 7- The Palestinian Community: It might not be as big as our communities in the U.S.A., Chili, Canada, Australia or even Germany but it an extremely important community, concentrated mainly in the London area and is in more intense contact with the homeland and the region than other diaspora communities. For example, because London is such an important Arab media center, we probably have here more than a 100 Palestinian journalists, second numerically only to Palestine itself. Throughout the years, many institutions were established in London. The Association of the Palestinian Community, of which I am the patron, has a constitution, a general assembly every two years, democratic elections and already 7 successive presidents. In addition, there are charities like Medical Aid for Palestinians MAP and Interpal or organisations dealing with lobbying and raising awareness like The Return Center or Arab Media Watch. We the Palestinians, we have become the Jews of the Israelis and today, because of our geographic dispersal, we are “a global tribe”. With the right approach, we could turn that into a source of empowerment. 8- The Arab Community: We dispose of no accurate figures because in the national census there is no such category for “Arabs” but “Muslims” and “Others”. A conservative estimate would be of over 400.000 British - Arabs. Politically speaking it is still an invisible community, the last ethnic minority to be totally unrepresented in both Houses of Parliament. This is due to the a combination of factors: absence of any governmental encouragement and insufficient assertiveness by the community itself. The Arab Club and national associations are regular interlocutors of the Palestinian delegation. 9- The Muslim Community: Now close to 2 millions with already 5 members in the House of Lords and 4 elected members of the House of Commons. Their electoral weight is increasingly being felt. Since my arrival to London, I am in regular contact with the Union of Muslim Organisations U.M.O. and the Muslim Council of Britain M.C.B., lectured at the invitation of “City Circle” a network of second and third generation Muslims who work in the City…. 10-The Jewish Community: Wherever I happen to live or work, I devote a lot of time interacting with the Jewish community and many of its institutions. I have frequently lectured in the Liberal Synagogue in St John’s Wood, always kept close relations with the Jewish Socialist Group, Jews for justice, friends of Mapam, friends of Peace Now, Neturai karta, etc … June Jacobs, Rabbi David Goldberg and many others are personal friends of both Christ’l and myself. Some years ago, the Jewish Chronicle published, unaltered, a long letter of mine where I said: “I never compare the Palestinian Nakba / Catastrophe to the Holocaust. Each tragedy stands on its own. I never indulge in comparative martyrology. If I were a Jew or a Gypsy, Nazi barbarity would be the most horrible event in History. If I were a Native American it would be the arrival of European settlers that resulted in almost total extermination. If I were a Black African, it would be slavery in previous centuries and Apartheid during last century. If I were an Armenian, it would the Ottoman/Turkish massacres. If I were a Palestinian – and I happen to be one – it would be the Nakba. Humanity should condemn all the above. I do not know of a way to measure suffering or how to quantity pain but what I do know is that we are not Children of a Lesser God” The broader picture: evolution of European perceptions 1948: European public perceptions of the Palestinian problem passed through a variety of phases. European anti-Semitism was decisive in the birth then the success of Zionism in Palestine. Without the “Dreyfus Affair” there would not have been Theodore Herzl’s manifesto: “The Jewish State”. Without Hitter’s accession to power in the early 1930’s and Nazi atrocities, Zionism would have remained a minority tendency within Jewish Communities. Both Abba Eban and Nahum Goldman wrote in a variety of books that the “exceptional conditions” of the birth of Israel wouldn’t have been possible without “the indulgence of the international community” as a result of the World War II. “Exceptional conditions” meant the atrocious conditions in which the majority in Palestine became the minority and the minority a majority. Alas the Palestinian dispossession and dispersion, the Nakba, took place with Europe… applauding. We were the victim of the victims of European history and were thus deprived of our legitimate share of sympathy, solidarity and support. 1956: I do not think that the tri-partite aggression against Egypt in 1956 made much of a fracture in the political establishment here in the U.K. Yes it shortened Anthony Eden’s premiership. Yes, the late Lord Christopher Mayhew committed political harakiri when it was predicted that he had prime ministerial potential. Yes, the late writer Peter Mansfield resigned from the Foreign Office but there was no major crack in society. In France, its impact was by far more serious. It helped terminate the 4th Republic and the political careers of Gaston Deferre and Guy Mollet, brought back de Gaulle to power in 1958 and thus contributed to the reorientation of French foreign policy. 1967: If one reads the book of Livia Rokach, the daughter of the first Mayor of Tel Aviv, on the Diaries of Moshe Sharett, one learns that Ben Gourion had two strategic doctrines. One was the periphery theory: since our environment is hostile, we have to make an alliance with the environment of our environment meaning Turkey, Iran and Ethiopia. The other doctrine could be summarised thus: we should know how to provoke the Arabs into provoking us so that we can expand beyond the narrow boundaries we have had to accept in 1948-49. That model applies perfectly to the escalating crisis that led to the 1967 war. General Matti Peled was known to have said: “believing that Israel was in danger in 1967 is an insult to the Israeli army”. 1967 is important because Israel starts to be perceived as an occupier. The facilitation of mass Palestinian departures to get rid of undesirable demography, the illegal annexation of expanded East Jerusalem, the beginning of settlement building, all start to tarnish the Israeli image. 1973: That was an important strategic moment and undeniably a demarcation line. Europe shows understanding towards the Arab military initiative to reawaken a dormant diplomatic front. The oil crisis that followed revealed the depth of interdependence, economic and on the security level between Europe and the Arab World and the risk of regional over-spills. The Euro-Arab dialogue is initiated and the need for an equitable solution for the Palestinian problem emphasized. 1977: The first electoral defeat by Labour liberates more segments of Western public opinion anesthesized by the soothing discourse of the labour leadership and their savoir-faire in matters of public relations. The raw discourse of Likud, their vociferous and vehement statements reflect better the reality of oppression. The Kibbutz movement , this “paradise on earth” used to seduce public opinion is discovered as a fading phenomenon that never represented more that 3% of society and of the Israeli economy anyway mainly built on confiscated Palestinian land. Under Israel, Palestine. A very stubborn Palestine indeed. 1982: The invasion of Lebanon was an eye-opener. An unprovoked war. Analysts said then that “it was a war out of choice not out of necessity” Many Jewish and Israeli writers announced “the end of the purity of arms”. 1987: The first Palestinian Intifada. Mainly non violent coupled in 1988 by the P.L.O. peace initiative of a Two-State solution and ushers a new era in which the media starts to better balance its coverage giving more time and space to Palestinian spokespersons carrying our version of history. My term of duty in London Let me first say that London, for an Arab or a Palestinian diplomat, is an emotionally difficult posting, from the Balfour Declaration to the Gulf wars. Yet I have to commend all my interlocutors for their profound decency and extreme professionalism. 1990: I landed in town in September 1990 and it was not a soft landing coinciding it coincided with the first Gulf crisis and Saddam Hussain’s occupation of Kuwait. We were accused then to have bet on the wrong horse. My major concern was not to get politically marginalised. I detested Saddam, the occupation of Kuwait, the rapid deployment of foreign troops and the preparations for war. I kept my adherence to the diplomatic option that I favoured. On a David Frost Sunday programme I stated: “You have seen Yasser Arafat kiss the cheeks of Saddam but you did not bother to ask what he was whispering in his ear”. 1991: With the end of the Gulf war, James Baker started his shuttle diplomacy. From London, we played an important role to project the image of the indivisible nature of the Palestinian people and of its national movement. In London several publicised meetings took place between PL.O. officials, Palestinian personalities from the occupied territories and diaspora intellectuals like Edward Said and Ibrahim Abu Lughod. The British Government offered us facilitations so that Faisal Husseini and Hanan Ashrawi could “slip” through London to Tunis for consultations. My position was: the P.L.O. is, at the same time, an institution and an idea. If ten thousands work in the institution, the 9 million Palestinians are the powerful vehicle of the idea. The P.L.O. has represented the Palestinian people for over 25 years. Now it will be the Palestinians representing the P.L.O. I frequently repeated then that the P.L.O. had become “unreasonably reasonable” having accepted that in the Madrid conference the Palestinians were “half a delegation, representing half the people seeking half a solution”. 1992: While negotiations are stagnating in Washington, the Oslo process starts… in London. On the 2nd of December the steering committee of the Multilateral Talks held its meetings in London. Abu Ala’a was the coordinator of the Palestinian negotiating teams but could not--the P.L.O. was still excluded--attend himself. While the formal official event was taking place in Lancaster House, Abu Ala’a and myself met at the Ritz Hotel with Yair Hirshfield an assistant of Yossi Beilin, with Terry Larsen, the Norwegian, hovering on the sides. 1993: The Oslo breakthrough and the White House signature. History in the making, I kept repeating. The specificity of the Palestinian situation: “a leadership in exile, a demography dispersed, a geography occupied” could move towards normality or the semblance of normality of “an authority over a demography over a geography”. 1994: My application for “family reunification” in East Jerusalem submitted by a distant relative …my mother, was rejected by the occupation authorities. I had planned to abandon politics and diplomacy and start an English weekly in Jerusalem: “The Palestinian”. The beginning of disenchantment with the peace process. My message was : Israel seeks a diplomatic outcome that would reflect: 1- Israeli power and intransigence, 2- The American constant alignment on the Israeli preference, 3- Russian decline, 4- European abdication, 5- Arab impotence, 6- and what they hope to be Palestinian resignation. My advice was: do not confuse realism with resignation. 1995: All Palestinian factions abide to an unproclaimed cease-fire. Assassination of Rabin by a Jewish extremist. The Israeli Government provokes the Islamic tendencies by the assassination of Shikaki in Malta and the “Engineer” in Gaza. 1996: Successful Palestinian Presidential and legislative elections. Retaliation of the Islamic tendencies in response to Israeli assassination policy. Peres wages war in Lebanon ending with the Kana massacre. “Retaliation” of the Palestinian Israeli voters through abstention and election of Netanyahu whom I described as “a pyromaniac on a power keg”. My lectures are often titled: “From breakthrough to breakdown?”. Still then followed by a question mark. 1997: Diplomatic stagnation. Instead of a permanent peace we live through the farce of a durable… peace process. 1998: Three meetings between President Arafat and Madeleine Albright in London. Increasing irritation of the American administration with Netanyahu’s rigidity. His damaging of American-Israeli relations is one of the factors that lead in 1999 to his electoral defeat opposite Barak. 1999: Barak a monumental disappointment. A complex individual, he alienated his colleagues within Labour and antagonised his coalition partners. Freezes the Palestinian track and flirts with the Syrian track. 2000: Barak wants to over jump the interim phases and move directly to final status talks. Arafat makes known that he believes that to be premature because insufficient home work was done. The American side restricted itself to convey to us Israeli proposals. David Aaron Miller, in a recent candid op-ed in The Washington Post-titled: “Israel’s lawyer”--writes that had the American side presented the “Clinton Parameters” in Camp David in July rather than, too late in December, we would have had an agreement then. The failure of Camp David heightens tensions. The provocative Sharon visit to the Dome of the Rock ignites the situation. The Mitchell report, some time later, admits that the second Intifada started by being non-violent and that the ferocious repression by the Israeli side, causing more than a hundred fatalities the first two weeks, pushed a few on our side to resort, unwisely, to using arms. 2001-2002: In the internal debate, I lobby for a unilateral Palestinian cease-fire. Clinically, I believe that the Israelis should be aware that they cannot terminate the Intifada and that we should be aware that by the Intifada alone, we cannot terminate the occupation. There is a need for a diplomatic initiative. 2002: The Diplomatic initiative occurs when the Beirut Arab Summit adopts the Saudi peace initiative. It is, alas, followed by a Hamas suicide bombing in Netanya. Sharon, offered a choice between reciprocating to a diplomatic ouverture or a retaliating to a military provocation chooses the latter. The world suffering from self-inflicted impotence, watches the reinvasion of the already occupied territories. The Nakba is definitely not a frozen moment in history that has recurred sometime in 1948. 2003: The previous September, Tony Blair, at the Labour annual conference, is very warmly applauded when he announces that he will convene an international conference to help resolve the conflict. The conference convened turns out to be more modest than expected: “on Palestinian reforms”. Even that displeases Sharon who tries to sabotage the London gathering by preventing Palestinian ministers from travelling. Fortunately modern technology and video-conferencing salvage the day. Here in London, I have to carry the burden. The Message: “Reform, meritocracy, transparency are not conditions to be imposed on us by the outside world. They are a Palestinian expectation, aspiration, a right and even a duty. Yet I warn: the issue of Palestinian reforms should not be the tree that hides the forest and in this case the forest is an ugly spectacle of occupation and oppression. 2004: Again, during the Labour party conference end of September, Tony Blair gets the loudest applause for his passage “Come November…. I will make it my personal priority…” I have, since then, often invoked this Blair speech to prove that Yasser Arafat was not the obstacle to peace. End of September, Arafat was not dead. He was not even ill. By “Come November”, Tony Blair meant when we have the American presidential elections behind us. 2005: With the disappearance of the founder of the contemporary Palestinian national movement, I frequently refer to Max Weher who spoke of the phases of leadership and legitimacy: 1- the traditional phase, 2- the charismatic phase, 3- the institutional phase. The successful presidential elections, competitive and internationally monitored is a good omen for the future. Having witnessed the end of the charismatic era, a managerial revolution should now be on the agenda. We all know Sharon’s intention. How the world and the Quartet will carry the peace process beyond the unilateral Israeli disengagement from Gaza remains to be seen. In Conclusion: We have an excellent working relationship with Her Majesty’s Government and with the entire political establishment. In Parliament, it is the pro-Israeli lobby which is on the defensive, more confortable in supporting an Israel run by Labour rather than the internationally embarrassing Likoud. All opinion polls in Britain, but also across Europe, show that the trend is overwhelmingly in favour of ending the Israeli occupation that has started in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian State. It is no more a left wing phenomenon but we enjoy confortable majorities among the voters of the Liberals and also the Conservative. Unlike 1973, when European Governmental positions were more advanced than their public opinions, today public opinions are more sensitive and supportive of Palestinian aspirations than their governments. The future looks promising. It is no more politically suicidal to be pro-Palestinian. It is no more electorally rewarding to be anti-Palestinian. Quiet the opposite.
Date: 09/12/2004
×
Safieh on President Arafat
Ladies and Gentlemen, No, he was not infallible - but who is? - yet he was a great man, undeniably one of the greatest of the second half of the twentieth century. Throughout his political career, Yasser Arafat was the object of relentless campaigns of character assassination-not because of what he was but because of what he represented: the Palestinian people whose mere existence was a monumental nuisance for those who coveted Palestine. With the Palestinian people threatened by historical oblivion , with our geography occupied and our demography dispersed, Yasser Arafat was the architect of the resurrecting Palestinian national movement in the mid-1960's and was its engine and locomotive for almost 40 years. He was our own Palestinian de Gaulle and like de Gaulle he has had to struggle against foes and friends alike to maintain the rank and status of Palestine and of the Palestinians undiminished. All throughout those decades, the tragedy was the absence of an Arab Churchill and an Arab Roosevelt. But that is another story. Ladies and Gentlemen, Making history is extremely important. So is interpreting history and disseminating one's own version of history. We still suffer an uphill battle because of the travesty of history concerning Barak's pseudo-generous offer. We should never again lose the battle of the different versions of history. Today we are being told that because Yasser Arafat is out of the way, there is a window of opportunity to revitalise the peace process. Today we are being told that because Yasser Arafat is out of the picture, the Palestinian people will finally familiarise themselves with democracy and elections. Ladies and Gentlemen, History will record that Yasser Arafat has led and preserved the multi-party system that is the P.L.O. History will record that, in spite of tremendous pressures, regional and international, Yasser Arafat always stood firmly against the elimination of the pluralistic nature of the national movement. And history will record that Yasser Arafat, besides his revolutionary and historical credentials acquired also, in 1996, democratic legitimacy in an internationally monitored and competitive presidential election in which Mrs Samiha Khalil, the director of the biggest N.G.O. in Palestine was the contender. As for the peace process reactivated, we, here in London, still remember Tony Blair's speech end of September to the annual conference of the British Labour Party: "Come November, he said, I will make it my personal priority…." . Yasser Arafat was not even sick then. There was then in the air, in the pipeline, the idea of a joint visit to Ramallah of the three major foreign ministers of the European Union: Jack Straw, Yoshka Fischer and Jacques Barnier, in order to help us regain the freedom of movement of President Arafat out of his captivity in the Muqata'a. History will record that the reactivation of the peace process today is not due to the death of Yasser Arafat but is the resultant of the convergence of three factors:
Yasser Arafat, an obstacle to peace? History will record that we need an Israeli "obstacle" of a similar kind in order to make further progress in our elusive quest. Ladies and Gentlemen, Reform they said. No, reforms we say. Reforms are not going to be a pre-condition imposed on us by the outside world. Reforms are a Palestinian expectation, a Palestinian aspiration, a Palestinian right and even a Palestinian duty. Reform they said. No, reforms we say. The American political system is increasingly turning into a mediocracy rather than an appetising democracy where lobbies can hijack American foreign policy and where interest groups have totally domesticated and tamed an undignified political establishment. Reform they said. No, reforms we say. Ladies and Gentlemen, These last weeks, most commentators, knowingly or unknowingly, repeatedly referred to, quoted or invoked Max Weber who, more than a century ago, wrote about the three phases of leadership and legitimacy:
We have had, prior to 1948, a traditional leadership. We have just witnessed the end of the charismatic era. Now begins the institutional phase. With the world as our witness, we have had a very smooth transition and the Palestinian people have demonstrated enormous maturity and a great sense of responsibility. I once asked Yasser Arafat: "Abou Ammar, which was your happiest day?", to which the answered, poetically, : " My happiest day? I haven't lived it yet". Abou Ammar, you were, at the same time, an individual, an idea and an institution. The individual is perishable but the idea will prove to be immortal and through the institutions that you have helped create, your people will soon live that happiest day that you have devoted and dedicated your whole life for. Afif Safieh Palestinian General Delegate to the United Kingdom and to the Holy See Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street, Al Massayef, Ramallah Postalcode P6058131
Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647 Jerusalem
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1 972-2-298 9492 info@miftah.org
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
|