Your Excellency Secretary General
Mr, Antonio Guterres,

On the 22nd anniversary of UNSC Resolution 1325 and the annual open discussion at the Security Council for the advancement of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, the Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition for the Implementation of UNSC Resolution 1325 would like to bring your attention to the fact that the suffering of Palestinian women living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) has unprecedentedly escalated since this resolution was passed, due to the Israeli occupation’s ongoing, hostile policies, systematic violations of human rights and grave breaches of international humanitarian law that are disproportionally impacting women and girls in the OPT. These violations include extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, restriction on movement, military blockades, house demolitions, land confiscation and illegal de-facto and de-juri annexation, in addition to the ongoing isolation of areas of the OPT from one another. This has had both individual and collective impact on the lives of women, impeding their access to resources, compounded by the deteriorating economic situation due to the occupation’s control and dominance over land and resources. Added to this is the rise in poverty levels due to unemployment, military blockade on the Gaza Strip for over 15 years and the occupation’s exercise of systematic long-term violence against the Palestinian protected population in the OPT, settlement expansion combined with settlers’ violence and vandalism

The Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition strongly believes that 22 years since the passage of UNSC Resolution 1325 has not resulted in concrete measures for the advancement of the women, peace and security agenda to Palestinian women living under Israeli prolonged military occupation. A lot still need yet to be made by the Security Council to maintain peace and security for Palestinian women living under military occupation. To the contrary, complications and challenges to Palestinian women have increased in terms of implementing the WPS agenda, due to Israeli impediments to its implementation. Israel, the occupying power, has also placed enormous obstacles before Palestinian women who seek to implement this resolution, given its continued occupation of the OPT and the absence of a just and durable solution to end this prolonged belligerent occupation. No concrete measures were taken by the international community to implement UN resolutions related to the question of Palestine, namely UN Resolutions 242, 338, 194 and 2334. Instead, Israel is intent on confiscating and annexing more land to build settlements, which has severed any path to the establishment of an independent and contiguous Palestinian state. Instead, OPT has been transformed into isolated islands more like the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, as indicated in the most recent evidence based-report by Amnesty International, describing Israel as an apartheid regime, where one racial group is discriminating against other racial groups.

The Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition, would also like to point out to the remarkable conclusions of a UN independent Commission of Inquiry (CoI) in its recent to the UN General Assembly in New York on 20/10/2022, which considered the Israeli occupation as unlawful according to international law. The report called on the UN General Assembly to ask the International Court of Justice for an urgent advisory opinion on the illegality of this prolonged military occupation, and the impacts of the Israeli illegal measures and violations against the Palestinian civilian population in the 1967 OPT.

Your Excellency UN Secretary General,

As the UNSC is meeting to discuss the advancement of the WPS agenda, we would like to draw to their attention the double standards employed by the United Nations in dealing with its own resolutions, especially when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the practices of Israel, the occupying power against Palestinian civilian population. Israeli illegal policies in the OPT , has not only curtailed Resolution 1325 from guaranteeing protection for women and involving her in security and peacemaking, it has also thwarted all international tools and mechanisms for the protection of civilians in times of war and under occupation. This is due to the failure of the international human rights and humanitarian law especially the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protections of Civilians at time of War and under occupation. The reason for this is that the UN itself is discriminatory and has double standards in its handling conflicts, and peoples’ causes due to the huge imbalance in justice and the policy of impunity, which Israeli, the occupying power enjoys. These policies have allowed Israel to escape from accountability or any punitive measures in accordance to UN Charter and more specifically Article 11 of UNSC Resolution 1325, which demands that perpetrators of crimes and violations during war are not afforded impunity. The fact that Israel is treated as a country above the law, and the absence of any form of accountability has only encouraged it to commit more crimes and violations. A case in point is the recent murdering of Palestinian Journalist Shirine Abu Akleh, where no one has been held accountable thus far, although the incident was caught on tape and there is hard evidence proving that her death was the result of premeditated and extrajudicial killing by the Israeli army.

During its evaluation and review of its action plan, the Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition noted that Resolution 1325 and the nine subsequent resolutions, pinpointed the reasons for the outbreak and development of conflicts in various regions of the world to racial, religious and ethnic disputes. However, it excluded women under racist, colonialist occupation, which is the case of Palestinian women under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including occupied East Jerusalem. Thus, it has disregarded all international resolutions pertaining to the rights of the Palestinian people, over and above Israel’s disregard for its responsibilities as an occupying power. This necessitates a special resolution addressing the status of Palestinian women under racist, colonialist occupation, and addressing the root causes of the suffering of Palestinian women and the major obstacle they face in meaningful political participation, and in moving forward in the advancement of the women, peace and security agenda.

Mr. Secretary General,

Finally, we in the Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition for the implementation of Resolution 1325, thank your Excellency for your understanding, and for conveying our concerns to all nation states during the open debate on WPS in the Security Council this year. We call on you to dedicate ample attention to the status of Palestinian women during the 22nd Security Council meeting on Resolution 1325, with the objective to develop and push forth the WPS agenda and put into action the role of international tools of accountability. We ask you to provide the necessary protection for Palestinian women under occupation, by closely overseeing the implementation of this resolution and the party responsible for impeding its application on the ground, namely, the Israeli occupying power that has exacerbated the suffering of Palestinian women at all levels and increased discriminatory measures against them.

With our sincere thanks and appreciation,
The Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition for the Implementation of UNSCR1325

Mr. President, Esteemed Members of the Security Council,

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to address you today, especially thankful to H.E. Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary and the Republic of Kenya for the kind invitation.

For over 70 years, the UN and its various bodies have been seized of the Palestine question; repeatedly reviewing conditions, adopting resolutions, and dispatching fact-finding missions, to no avail. Sadly, this Council has been unable to assert authority, allowing this injustice to become a perpetual tragic human, moral, political and legal travesty.

So it would be disingenuous of me to come before you assuming I could inform you of something you do not already know. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the opportunity to communicate in a candid manner, not to recite endless statistics, nor to reiterate the ongoing pain of a people, deprived of their basic rights, including even the right to speak out, admonished not to “whine” or “complain,” as a means of silencing the victim.

The tragedy is that you know all of this; yet, it has had a minimal impact, if any, on the horrific conditions in Occupied Palestine.

I imagine it must be disheartening and frustrating for this distinguished organization and its members to find themselves trapped in this cycle of deliberate disdain and futility.

It is therefore imperative that this Council consider where it has gone wrong and what it can do to correct course and serve the cause of justice and peace.

Undoubtedly, the absence of accountability for Israel and of protection for the Palestinian people has enabled Israeli impunity to ride roughshod over the rights of an entire nation, allowing for perpetuation of a permanent settler-colonial occupation.

Mr. President,

Much of the prevailing political discourse overlooks reality and is diverted and subsumed by chimeras and distractions proffered by Israel and its allies under such banners as “economic peace,” “improving the quality of life,” “normalization,” “managing the conflict,” “containing the conflict,” or “shrinking the conflict.”

These fallacies must be dismantled. Volatile situations of injustice and oppression do not shrink. They expand and explode, with disastrous consequences. Similarly, the delusion of “imposing calm” under siege and systemic aggression, particularly as in Gaza, is an oxymoron, for calm or security on the one hand and occupation or captivity on the other are antithetical and irreconcilable.

Likewise, the fallacy of “confidence-building measures” is misguided since occupation breeds only contempt, distrust, resentment, and resistance. The oppressed cannot be brought to trust or accept handouts from their oppressor as an alternative to their right to freedom and justice.

The misleading and flawed “both sides” argument calling for “balance” in a flagrantly unbalanced situation is another attempt at obfuscation and generating misconceptions.

Israel’s impunity is further enhanced using such excuses as being the so-called “only democracy in the Middle East” or a “strategic ally,” or having “shared values,” or even for the sake of protecting its “fragile coalition.”

There has also been tacit and, at times overt, acceptance of Israel’s ideological, absolutist arguments, including the invocation of religious texts as a means to dismiss and supplant contemporary political and legal discourse and action. Hence, the so-called “Jewish State Law,” which allocates the right to self-determination exclusively to Jews in all of historic Palestine, is endorsed and normalized.

In the meantime, a massive disinformation machine persists in its racist maligning and demonizing of the Palestinian people, going so far as to label them “terrorists,” or a “demographic threat,” a dehumanizing formula exploited as a way to deny the right of millions of Palestine refugees to return.

Such slander has warped political focus and discourse globally. Some states have gone off on a tangent pursuing Palestinian textbooks for so-called “incitement,” or adopting the IHRA definition that conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, or criminalizing BDS, or intimidating and censoring academics and solidarity activists who stand up for Palestinian rights.

These distortions ignore the unequal and unjust laws designed to persecute Palestinians, individually and collectively. It is evidenced in the defamation of our political prisoners and the targeting of their families’ livelihoods, as though Israeli military courts or prison systems have anything to do with justice or legality.

The mindless refrain that Israel has the “right to defend itself,” while the Palestinian people are denied such a right, is perverse in that the occupier’s violence is justified as “self-defense” while the occupied are stigmatized as “terrorists.”

We cannot afford to disregard the context of occupation and its systemic aggression as the framing device for all critical assessments and action.

Excellencies,

Occupied Palestine, including Jerusalem, is the target of a comprehensive and pervasive policy of colonization and erasure, of displacement and replacement, in which Israel is appropriating everything Palestinian; our land and resources; our cultural and human heritage; our archeological sites, which we have safeguarded for centuries; our history; our cuisine; the names of our streets; and most egregiously the identity of Jerusalem, as we witness in the ethnic cleansing of the Old City, Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan among others. Even our cemeteries have been desecrated such as the building of a so-called “museum of tolerance” on top of human remains in Maman’ Allah cemetery. And, Israel continues to stoke the flames of a “holy war,” with repeated assaults on our holy sites, particularly Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Jerusalem is being targeted in a deliberate campaign of annexation and distortion. Israel now brazenly declares its intent to complete the settlement siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the territorial contiguity of the West Bank, with its outrageous plans for E-1, Qalandiya airport (Atarot), “Pisgat Ze’ev” and “Giv’at HaMatos.”

We cannot be distracted by symbolic gestures that create a false impression of progress. Claims that the “time is not right,” or that it is “difficult now” to work for a peaceful solution, give license to Israel to persist in its perilous policies. Likewise, repeating a verbal commitment to the two-State solution, while one state is allowed to deliberately destroy the other, rings hollow.

Mr. President,

All of this does not preclude our recognition of our own shortcomings. We do not shirk our responsibility to speak out against internal violence, human rights abuses, corruption, or other such practices that are rejected and resented by our own people. It is our responsibility to carry out democratic reform and revitalize our body politic while ending our internal divisions. This is a Palestinian imperative.

But we must caution others against exploiting our shortcomings to justify Israeli crimes or international inaction, or to condition any positive engagement on the creation of an ideal system of governance in Palestine while we languish under a lawless system of Israeli control.

We ask that you, trustees of the rules-based order, uphold your responsibilities: provide us with protection from aggression and empower our people to amplify their voice, both in governance and liberation.

Esteemed Members of the Council,

Peace is not achieved by “normalizing the occupation,” sidelining the Palestine Question, or rewarding Israel by repositioning it as a regional superpower. Such an approach maintains the causes of regional instability and insecurity, while enabling Israel as a colonial apartheid State to superimpose “Greater Israel” on all of historic Palestine.

Generation after generation, the people of Palestine have remained committed to the justice of their cause, the integrity of their narrative, the authenticity of their history and culture, and their inviolable right to live in freedom, and dignity, as an equal among nations and in the fullness of our humanity.

It is time to reclaim the narrative of justice and invoke our collective will to activate the UN Charter and affirm the relevance of international law.

The time has come for courageous and determined action, not just to undo the injustice of the past but to chart a clear and binding course for a peaceful future of hope and redemption.

I thank you.

To view the full Speech as PDF

We, the undersigned global coalition of leaders –from civil society to academia, art, media, business, politics, indigenous and faith communities, and people of conscience around the world– call upon the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to act decisively to put an end to Israel’s notorious use of arms and military equipment for the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights against Palestinian civilians by immediately imposing a comprehensive two-way arms embargo on Israel.

In the spring of 2021, the world once again watched in horror as Israeli occupying forces attacked defenceless Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and inside Israel. Palestinian civilians peacefully protesting against colonisation of their land were assaulted with live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, sound bombs, tear gas and skunk water. Israel’s deadly military aggression against the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip was the fourth in a decade. Over 11 days, 248 Palestinians were killed, including 66 children. Thousands were wounded, and the reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons on hospitals, schools, food security, water, electricity and shelter continue to affect millions.

This systematic brutality, perpetrated throughout the past seven decades of Israel’s colonialism, apartheid, pro-longed illegal belligerent occupation, persecution, and closure, is only possible because of the complicity of some governments and corporations around the world.

Symbolic statements of condemnation alone will not put an end to this suffering. In accordance with the relevant rules of the ATT, States Parties have legal obligations to put an end to irresponsible and often complicit trade of conventional arms that undermines international peace and security, facilitates commission of egregious crimes, and threatens the international legal order.

Under Article 6(3) of the ATT, States Parties undertook not to authorise any transfer of conventional arms if they have knowledge at the time of authorisation that arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which they are a Party.

Under Articles 7 and 11, they undertook not to authorise any export of conventional arms, munitions, parts and components that would, inter alia, undermine peace and security or be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

It is clear that arms exports to Israel are inconsistent with these obligations. Invariably, Israel has shown that it uses arms to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as documented by countless United Nations bodies and civil society organisations worldwide. Military exports to Israel also clearly enabled, facilitated and maintained Israel’s decades-long settler-colonial and apartheid regime imposed over the Palestinian people as a whole.

Similarly, arms imports from Israel are wholly inconsistent with obligations under the ATT. Israeli military and industry sources openly boast that their weapons and technologies are “combat proven” – in other words, field-tested on Palestinian civilians “human test subjects”. When States import Israeli arms, they are encouraging it to keep bombing Palestinian civilians and persist in its unlawful practices. No one –neither Israel, nor arms manufacturers in ATT States parties– should be allowed to profit from the killing or maiming of Palestinian civilians.

It is thus abundantly clear that imposing a two-way arms embargo on Israel is both a legal and a moral obligation. ATT States Parties must immediately terminate any current, and prohibit any future transfers of conventional arms, munitions, parts and components referred to in Article 2(1), Article 3 or Article 4 of the ATT to Israel, until it ends its illegal belligerent occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory and complies fully with its obligations under international law. Pending such an embargo, all States must immediately suspend all transfers of military equipment, assistance and munitions to Israel.

A failure to take these actions entails a heavy responsibility for the grave suffering of civilians – more deaths, more suffering, as thousands of Palestinian men, women and children continue to bear the brutality of a colonial belligerent occupying force– which would result in discrediting the ATT itself. It also renders States parties complicit in internationally wrongful acts through the aiding or abetting of international crimes.  A failure in taking action could also result in invoking the individual criminal responsibility of individuals of these States for aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in accordance with Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Justice will remain elusive so long as Israel’s unlawful occupation, settler-colonialism, apartheid regime, and persecution and institutionalised oppression of the Palestinian people are allowed to continue, and so long as States continue to be complicit in the occupying Power’s crimes by trading weapons with it.

In conclusion, we believe that the ATT can make a difference in the Palestinian civilians’ lives. It has the potential, if implemented in good faith, to spare countless protected persons from suffering. If our call to stop leaving the Palestinian people behind when it comes to implementation of the ATT is ignored, the raison d'être of the ATT will be shattered.

Joining organisations:

1. Action Sécurité Ethique Républicaines
2. Adalah Justice Project
3. Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association
4. AFPS 63
5. Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
6. Aldameer Association for Human Rights
7. Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Man
8. Alrowwad Cultural and Arts Society
9. American Muslims for Palestine
10. Anglican Pacifist Fellowship
11. Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem (ARIJ)
12. Arab Canadian Lawyers Association
13. Arab Organization for Human Rights
14. Argenteuil Solidarité Palestine
15. Asociación Americana de Juristas
16. Association Belgo-Palestinienne WB
17. Association femmes plurielles
18. Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS)
19. AssoPacePalestina
20. Australia Palestine Advocacy Network
21. Australian Centre for International Justice
22. Australians For Palestine
23. Badayl
24. BDS Australia
25. Begian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
26. Campagne BDS France
27. Canadian BDS Coalition
28. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
29. Center for Constitutional Rights
30. Center for International Policy
31. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Estratégicos para la Seguridad y el Desarrollo Social CIESED A.C.
32. CNAPD - Coordination Nationale d'Action pour la Paix et la Démocratie
33. Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine
34. Collectif 69 de Soutien au Peuple Palestinien
35. Collectif BDS 57
36. Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine
37. Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines
38. Columban missionaries Britain
39. Columbia Law Students for Palestine
40. Combatants for Peace
41. Comitato BDS Campania
42. Comité de Solidaridad con la Causa Árabe
43. Comité pour une Paix Juste au Proche-Orient asbl
44. Community Action Center - Al-Quds University
45. Confederación Intersindical Gallega (CIG)
46. Cultura è Libertà, una campagna per la Palestina
47. Dagropass
48. De Palestijnse gemeenschap in Nederland
49. Defense for Children -Palestine (DCI-Palestine)
50. Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
51. docP - BDS Netherlands
52. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights
53. European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP)
54. European Legal Support Center
55. Femmes Unies pour la Paix dans la région des Grands Lacs
56. FILEF Sydney Federation of Italian Migrant Workers
57. Finnish-Arab Friendship Society
58. Friends of Palestine Tasmania Inc
59. Gaza Action Ireland
60. Gesellschaft Schweiz Palästina GSP/ASP
61. Global Kairos Asia Pacific Solidarity For Palestine (GKAPS)
62. Good Shepherd Collective
63. Housing and Land Rights Network
64. Human Rights and Democratic Participation Center “SHAMS”
65. Human Rights Network Nigeria
66. ICAHD Finland
67. ICAHD UK
68. Independent Jewish Voices Canada
69. Indian Writers Forum
70. Indo Palestine Solidarity Forum
71. International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD)
72. International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific
73. Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign
74. Jewish Voice For Peace
75. Jews for Palestinian Right of Return
76. Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Juste
77. Karapatan
78. Kenya Human Rights Commission
79. Labor for Palestine
80. Manushya Foundation
81. National Association of Democratic Lawyers (South Africa)
82. National Justice & Peace Network (NJPN)
83. National Lawyers Guild, Palestine Subcommittee
84. Nederlands Palestina Komitee
85. Newweapons research group
86. Niagara Movement for Justice in Palestine-Israel (NMJPI)
87. North Notts Unite Community
88. NOVACT
89. Oakville Palestinian Rights Association
90. Palestine Solidarity Network - Edmonton
91. Palestinian and Jewish Unity
92. Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)
93. Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall)
94. Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (PNGO)
95. Pax Christi International
96. Pax Christi, England and Wales
97. Paz con Dignidad
98. Platform of French NGOs for Palestine
99. Salaam ragazzi dell'Olivo, comitato di Trieste
100. Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
101. SODePAZ
102. Solutions Not Punishment Collaborative
103. The Civic Coalition for Palestinians Right in Jérusalem
104. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
105. The Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center (JLAC)
106. The National Association of Human Rights Defenders
107. The Oakville Palestinian Rights Association
108. The Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC)
109. The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy-MIFTAH
110. UJFP French Jewish union for peace
111. Union syndicale Solidaires
112. US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
113. US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
114. Visualizing Palestine
115. Vrede vzw
116. Vredesactie
117. War on Want
118. Women for Palestine
119. Women in Black Vienna
120. Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling

Joining individuals:

121. Ahmed Ben
122. Ahmed Reda Tolba
123. Alaa Shalaby
124. Alaaeddine Tatak
125. Aline Shaban
126. Amin Abbas
127. Andrea Balduzzi
128. Angie Mindel
129. Ann McNicholas
130. Anne Peacey
131. Ashley Tellis
132. Atamjit Singh
133. Audrey J Bomse
134. Badee M.T. Aldwaik
135. Baruti Likoyi
136. Bernadette McPhe
137. Chirag Shah
138. Claudia Karas
139. Claudia Schiavelli
140. Denise Peillon
141. Denotter JJ
142. Devaki Khanna
143. Dr. Ibrahim Lada’a
144. Dr. Nerina Cecchin
145. Egbert Harmsen
146. Marc Fayard
147. Firoz Ahmad
148. Flavia Lepre
149. Françoise Abadie
150. Frstot Marie-Paule
151. Gabriel Mondragón Toledo
152. Geeta Kapur
153. Geeta Kapur
154. Georges Franco
155. Gillard Francois
156. Gina Cardosi
157. Githa Hariharan
158. Gregory Kotoy
159. Gyan Prakash
160. Haidi Ali Muhammad Eltayeb
161. Hélène Le Cacheux
162. Herman De Ley
163. Huwaida Arraf
164. Ian Ampleford
165. Ian Mc Cabe
166. Indu Chandrasekhar
167. Jake Javanshir
168. James Dickins
169. James Lafferty
170. John King
171. Joop Hoekstra
172. Julia Auf Dem Brinke
173. Julie Hart
174. Kalyani Chaudhuri
175. Karel Arnaut
176. Karin Brothers
177. Karin Verelst
178. Kathryn Kelly
179. Kellie Tranter
180. Lauren Speiser
181. Laurent De Wangen
182. Lee Rhiannon
183. Luisa Morgantini
184. M.N. Harakeh
185. Madeline Lutjeharms
186. Maha Abdallah
187. Maha Alami
188. Malini Bhattacharya
189. Mani Shankar Aiyar
190. Marcy Newman
191. Maria Bartolacci
192. Marjorie Cohn
193. Martin Mavenjina
194. Massimiliano Masini
195. Maxime Florentin
196. Maya Devi
197. Michael Letwin
198. Michel Gevers
199. Mohamad Arouki
200. Mohamed Aboelazm
201. Mohammad Al Nabulsi
202. Mohan Rao
203. Monique Vincent
204. Muralidharan K
205. Nalini Nayak
206. Nandini Sundar
207. Naresh Dadhich
208. Nasir Tyabji
209. Navdeep Mathur
210. Nick Deane
211. Nozomi Takahashi
212. Oishik Sircar
213. P A Azeez
214. Pamela Blakelock
215. Pamela Philipose
216. Paola Manduca
217. Patrick Lechopier
218. Persis Ginwalla
219. Pierre Bordone
220. Pushpa Achanta
221. Pushpamala N
222. Raffaele Spiga
223. Rajni Palriwala
224. Rev Joseph Ryan
225. Rey Asis
226. Rudolf Knutti
227. S. Raghunandana
228. Salim Yusufji
229. Sellin Jean-Christophe
230. Shafey Kidwai
231. Sharib Aqleem Ali
232. Sigour Brigitte
233. Sonia Fayman
234. Stephen Flaherty
235. Sue Ingham
236. Sumanta Banerjee
237. Terri Ginsberg
238. Valter Mutt
239. Vinay Bharadwaj
240. Vincent Basabé
241. Winfried Belz
242. Yousuf Saeed
243. YVes Goaer
244. Yves Jardin

To View the Letter as PDF

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.

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:

1. The "monopoly" of representation of the American Jewish community by AIPAC is increasingly challenged within the community;

2. An important segment of the Israeli political establishment is increasingly uncomfortable with AIPAC –and this goes back to the late Prime Minister Ishak Rabin- because of its constant support for the Israeli "maximalist" preference not because it is desirable but simply because it is "do-able" on Capitol Hill;

3. Within the American Administration there is an increasing irritation with the excesses of AIPAC and the trial case of the two senior officials for espionage is one of its manifestations;

4. Within American public opinion, there is a growing allergy for the enormous power of lobbies and interest groups in general.

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:

• That history - or the history of this crisis – did not begin with the capture of the Israeli soldiers;

• That the root of the problem remains the endless military occupation of Palestinian and Arab territories and the insatiable Israeli territorial appetite;

• That over 10,000 Palestinian and Arab political prisoners are held in Israeli jails, most of whom never engaged in military activity – legitimate or otherwise – meaning that every city, village and refugee camp have many detainees kept endlessly behind bars;

• That the USA is committed to Israeli's existence but not to Israel's expansion;

• That the Arab world - from Morocco to Muscat in Oman - have offered Israel and the world a historical compromise: if Israel withdraws out of its 1967 expansion, Arab countries are ready to recognize its pre-1967 existence;

• That it is the absence of a credible peace process that allows for those chronic uncontrolled escalations;

• That throughout the years, Israeli intransigence had defied, delegitmized, and destabilized moderate Arab governments and allowed the emergence and the growth of radical movements;

• That the unresolved nature of the Palestinian problem and the perceived American complacency with Israeli preferences have globally poisoned international relations;

• That Middle East peace can only be achieved with the active and assertive imput by third parties and mainly the USA.

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.

(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:-

1. Government
2. Parliament
3. Political parties
4. the Diplomatic corps
5. the media
6. the NGO’S
7. the Palestinian community
8. the Arab community
9. the Muslim community
10. the Jewish community

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.

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:

1. now that President Bush has secured his place in the white House for a second mandate, even he might also want to secure his place in History;
2. there is immense European and international exasperation with the self-inflicted impotence of the American administration for the last 4 years which has resulted in the irresponsible deterioration of the situation in Palestine/Israel;
3. there is a growing awareness around the world that what is poisoning international relations and creating a rift with the Arab and Muslim worlds is the unresolved Palestinian tragedy and the perceived American complacency and complicity with the Israeli territorial appetite.

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:

1. the traditional leadership;
2. the charismatic leadership;
3. the institutional leadership.

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