A redefinition of the Middle East conflict occurred last week when Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations called Israel's occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six Day War "illegal." A new and provocative label of "illegality" is now out of the chute and running loose, ready to wreak damage. The worst prospect is that Palestinians will dig in with a new feeling of righteousness and believe that the international community will force Israel to withdraw from its "illegal occupation."

In Middle Eastern politics, memory enables each side to nurture its grievances but there is little collective memory that might facilitate negotiations on the basis of shared assumptions. Few seem to care anymore that the 1967 war was a war of self-defense for Israel or that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 referred to withdrawal from "territories" rather than from "the territories" — a crucial distinction that shows that the resolution does not necessarily require withdrawal from all of the land occupied in 1967. In this time of crisis and forgetfulness, using the term "illegal" is destructive and dangerous. For the uninformed, the discussion will start with the secretary general's labeling of the occupation as a violation of law.

Those who pay attention to the details of history know better. Resolution 242, passed right after the 1967 war, envisions a just resolution of the conflict and calls for withdrawal and mutual recognition, but it says nothing about legality. Resolution 338, passed after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, imposes an obligation on Israel and the Arabs to negotiate peace. Because it insisted that the Palestinians negotiate an end to the Israeli presence, the Security Council could not have thought the occupation itself violated international law.

Later Security Council resolutions — numbered 446, 452 and 465 — do indeed condemn Israel's policy of building settlements in the occupied territories and declare that these settlements have "no legal validity." Yet these rebukes against Israeli policy were about the settlements — not about the legality of the occupation. And even then, the Security Council stopped short of actually saying that all settlements are illegal. Some of the settlements might be acceptable under the language of Resolution 242, which recognizes that Israel has the right to live within "secure and recognized boundaries." However, there is room for debate about whether Israel's support for the settlements violates the prohibition in the Fourth Geneva Convention that states that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Even supposing that the settlements are found to be contrary to international law, it does not follow that the occupation as a whole is illegal. Israel has dismantled settlements before — in the agreement with Egypt on the return of the Sinai — and it could do so again. Indeed, the person in charge of the uprooting of the Sinai settlement of Yamit was none other than Ariel Sharon, who was then Israel's defense minister. It is unfortunate that the dubious policy of building settlements and the military actions of the Israeli Army are getting confused, in the public's mind, with the legality of Israel's holding unannexed lands until a peace agreement is signed.

It is not illegal for victorious powers to occupy hostile territory seized in the course of war until they are able to negotiate a successful peace treaty with their former enemies. The Palestinians have failed to recognize this fact. As former President Bill Clinton stressed at a recent conference in New York, the Camp David proposal was the most sweeping peace effort ever made, and the Palestinians said no.

Still, it's true that Israel's recent military incursions may be provoking violent countermoves by suicide bombers. The proper focus of criticism should be these military actions, not Israel's maintaining a presence while it waits for the Palestinians to negotiate a compromise for peace. Injecting the word "illegal" into the conversation will only shift the focus away from calming the situation and increase intransigence by the Palestinians. Even the vision of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel presupposes that under the spirit of Resolution 242, Israel's presence in the occupied territories is consistent with international law. In this context, the choice of the words "illegal occupation" is a perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace.

George P. Fletcher is a professor at Columbia University School of Law and author of the forthcoming "Romantics at War: Glory and Guilt in the Age of Terrorism."

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

Dear Amazon.com Senior Executives:

I am writing to express my personal dismay with your hitherto respectable and non-partisan corporation.

I am referring to your sponsorship of Israel (see attached logo), through Hollinger's Jerusalem Post --in a time when the Palestinian society has been brought to shambles by the same Israel you want to support.

I would encourage you to reconsider your position on that matter (if you really wanted to support Israel, don't help it perpetuate its genocide. When It heeds to International Law, I will be the first to support it, but this day, I am afraid, is not forthcoming, as long as people like you "support" the current Israeli lawless ethno-centric regime), and maintain Amazon.com's non-partisanship intact.

Till that time, I will not spend a single cent in your stores, and I am a regular customer.

Best regards,
Baha Abushaqra (Mr.)
http://www.mideastjournal.com

"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen." (Golda Meir, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961)

Sadly, when it comes to the Right of Return, there is virtually no difference between the Israeli Left and Right, as peace activist and founding member of Gush Shalom Uri Avnery once noted (1)--they all reject it. But, the question is why.

It is one thing to denounce such rejection, but to defeat it, a strong case must be made against it, by exposing its underlying moral bankruptcy, lawlessness and debunking its relevant myths, until it is exposed for what it really is --mere chauvinism, in the racist sense.

Background: the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem

Al-Nakba (Arabic: the catastrophe)

"It was estimated that before the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli war, on 15 May 1948, the number of Palestinian refugees had reached about 300,000. As Anthony Nutting has remarked: 'it would be truer to say that the refugees were the cause of the first Arab-Israeli war and not the result'." (Cattan, Henry, 1976, Palestine and International Law, p.138)

In the course of the 1948 war in Palestine, what Palestinians refer to as Al-Nakba, and the subsequent establishment of the state of Israel, some 800,000 Palestinians were expelled and displaced from their villages, homes, and lands by Zionist forces.

"The extent to which the refugees were savagely driven out by the Israelis as part of a deliberate master plan has been insufficiently recognized." (John H. Davis, Commissioner General of UNRWA 1959-63, The Evasive Peace, p.57)

An Israeli military intelligence document indicates that at least 75 percent of the refugees left due to direct Zionist military actions and/or Zionist terror campaigns. There are several well-documented cases of mass expulsions (the best-known is that of the 50,000 Arabs of the towns of Lydda and Ramle) during and after the 1948-49 Zionist-Arab hostilities. Close to 500 Palestinian villages were depopulated and destroyed by Zionist forces (2) (destroyed, to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees).

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis and; Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." (Moshe Dayan, Israel's Defense Minister, addressing Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa. Quoted in Ha'aretz, 04/04/1969)

Whatever the cause for their exodus, Palestinians never willfully relinquished their lands and, as such, these lands were, literally, stolen from them by the newly founded Zionist government. To be clear, these lands were systematically expropriated from Palestinians in what amounts to legalized theft and were not rightfully "bought," per the common Israeli myth.

Enough UN documents and maps as well as testimonies by Israeli historians and politicians (for example, Ben Gurion's testimony to UNSCOP in 1947) (3) concur that, prior to the 1948 Arab-Zionist war, Jews owned no more than 6% (5.6% by Palestinian estimates) of Palestine. By the end of the 1948 war, however, Israel controlled 78% of the total landmass, the vast majority of which was owned by Palestinian residents who were evacuated from their villages and/or who fled their homes during the war.

The Israeli government undertook formidable measures to legalize its systematic confiscation policies in the Israeli legal system in order to legitimize its ownership of confiscated properties. Various intertwined policies and laws were enacted to accomplish this task. The lands and properties of evicted Palestinians, which were described as "absentee property," were seized under the Absentee Property Regulations of 1948.

On March 15, 1950 the Israeli Knesset passed the Absentee Properties Law, which declared as "absentees" all Palestinian citizens who were not present in Israel on the 1st of September 1948, and vested all their property in the Trustee on the Absentee Properties. This law considered the latter as the legitimate "custodian" of these properties and gave it the authority to sell and transfer ownership of such properties to the Israeli Department of Construction and Development. From thence, lands were acquired ("redeemed," say the Jewish fundamentalists/Zionists) by the Jewish National Fund, such that by 1953 the Jewish National Fund's "ownership" totaled over 90% of the territories under the control of the "Jewish state." Such properties are referred to as the "nation's land" and are limited to the use of Jews only. (4)

According to UN estimates, Al-Nakba left the Palestinian refugees dispersed in the following manner:

West Bank: 26.25%
Gaza: 38.5%
Arab Countries: 35.25%

(The UN initially registered an additional 40,000 Palestinians as displaced persons inside the territory of the state of Israel itself.)

Who is a Palestinian Refugee?

"Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict...UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 3.8 million in 2001, and continues to rise due to natural population growth." (5)

"One-third of the registered Palestine refugees, about 1.1 million, live in 59 recognized refugee camps in the area of operations in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and Gaza Strip." (5)

In wake of the June 1967 war, which Palestinians refer to as Al-Naksa (Arabic: the setback), Israel displaced between 235,000 and 350,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. This included around 175,000 UNRWA registered refugees who became refugees for a second time. Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip who were displaced for the first time in 1967 were considered "displaced persons" rather than "refugees". (Until the 1967 war, the West Bank had been under the control of Jordan. Most West Bank Palestinians fled to Jordan and continued to live under Jordanian jurisdiction, hence their classification as "displaced" persons.)

"Ten of the (refugee) camps were established in the aftermath of the June 1967 war and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to accommodate a new wave of displaced persons, both refugees and non-refugees." (5)

Consequently, there are over 3.8 million UNRWA registered refugees and about 2 million others non- registered.

In all, about 3 million Palestinians now live within the territory of Palestine, as it was defined by the British mandate, which is now divided between the state of Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza. About one million Palestinian are citizens of Israel, living inside the country's 1949 armistice borders; about 1.2 million live in the West Bank (including 200,000 in East Jerusalem) and about one million in the Gaza Strip. The remainder of the Palestinian people, perhaps another 3 million, live in Diaspora outside their ancestral homeland.

Palestinian refugees constitute the single largest refugee population in the world, according to the U.S. Committee on Refugees. One in four refugees worldwide is Palestinian.

The Feasibility of the Return

Ironically, the majority of Palestinian refugees reside within a 100 miles of their places of origin (inside Israel, West Bank and Gaza) but are unable to exercise their right to return. (6)

"By the time Israel became a state in 1948, JNF owned 12.5 percent of all the land of Israel, on which 80 percent of Israel's population now lives," boasts the Jewish National Fund on its official website. (7)

Noted Palestinian researcher, Salman Abu Sitta, more or less agrees. His research on Israel's demography concludes that 78% of the Jews in Israel live in 15% of Israel proper; 85% of the land is mostly refugees' land, in which 22% of Israelis live. (8)

Logistically, therefore, the Right of Return is feasible with minimal disruption, albeit warranted, to the Israeli citizenry.

The Right of Return & International Law

Before its admission to the UN, on 11 May 1949, Israel declared that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honor them from the day it becomes a member of the United Nations." (9)

UN General Assembly Resolution 273 stated that Israel would be admitted to the UN on the condition that Israel accepts its previous relevant resolutions, namely, 194 (which guaranteed Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes) and 181 (the partition plan of November 29, 1947). The General Assembly has reaffirmed this resolution over forty times (most recently on 11 December 1990, in Resolution 45/73). (9)

Paragraph 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194, of December 1948, which outlined the framework for a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem, states:

"Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

In the first Progress Report submitted by the UN-appointed Mediator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, the Mediator recognized the right of return as key to a resolution of the conflict in Palestine. Bernadotte wrote:

"No settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the homes from which he has been dislodged. It would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries."

(Count Bernadotte paid dearly for his conscientiousness --he was liquidated by Zionist terrorists in Jerusalem, on September 17, 1948.)

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 of 1974 reaffirmed this droit. According to Article 2, it is "the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."

General Assembly Resolution 51/129 of 1996 reaffirmed the right of Palestinian refugees to their property and the revenues from the property.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Article 15 states: "Everyone has the right to a nationality."

Conclusion:

Aside from being a pressing humanitarian case, solving the Palestinian refugee problem is the true oft-shunned key to attaining justice and lasting peace in the Middle East. The Right of Return is inalienable and cannot be "negotiated" away in a manner contradictory to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN resolutions. To do so would be perpetuation of inexcusable and unconscionable injustice.

It is a fact: if it weren't for Zionism, for Israel, there would be no Palestinian refugee problem. Hence, today Jews have an indisputable moral responsibility to ending the Palestinian suffering. And, if the return is demographically feasible, why, then, could not Jews and Palestinians coexist as equals in a democratic pluralistic society in the Holy Land?

Golda Meir was gravely wrong and myopic to stack Israel over humanistic-Judaism, when she said, "we shall not let this happen." She was a Zionist.

--------

Footnotes:

(1) http://www.mediamonitors.net/uri3.html
(2) http://www.palestineremembered.com
(3) UNSCOP is United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. See Maps & Mythology, Edward F. Henderson, American Educational Trust
(4) "Land Ownership in Palestine/Israel," by Nasser Abufarha (http://www.ap-agenda.org/nasser/nasser3.htm)
(5) UNRWA is United Nations Relief & Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. See http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/p1.htm
(6) The Right of Return, March 2001, Badil (http://www.badil.org/Campaign/Packet/RoR01.pdf)
(7) Direct quote from the official Jewish National Fund website, Oct 13, 2002 (http://www.jnf.org/history.html)
(8) "Is the Right of Return Feasible?" by Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, AUGUST-7-2001 (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Right-Of-Return/Story440.html)
(9) http://arjanelfassed.mediamonitors.org/art200005p2.html

*Mr. Baha Abushaqra is a Canadian-based media activist of Palestinian origin who believes in peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs under one democratic state in the Holy Land. His articles/letters are posted at www.mideastjournal.com

I. US President George W. Bush on the assassination of Israeli Minister Rehavam
Ze’evi (considered a 'hard-liner' by his own people), back in October 2001, by
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (which was in retaliation for the
assassination of its leader Abu-Ali Mustapha) (through White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer):

“The President condemns in the strongest terms the assassination of Israeli Tourism
Minister Rehavam Ze’evi today… He offers his condolences and those of the United
States to Prime Minister Sharon, the Israeli government and people, and the family
of Minister Ze’evi… This despicable act is further evidence of the need to fight
terrorism.”

Weapon used: gun

'Collateral damage:' zero

Official Palestinian reaction: the Palestinian National Authority strongly condemned
the attack

Official Israeli reaction: the Israeli government strongly condemned the attack

II. Mr. Bush on the assassination of Palestinian activist/Hamas military wing-leader
Salah Shehada on 22 July 2002 (through White House spokesman Ari Fleischer):

"President George Bush saw the attack as a heavy-handed action that is not
consistent with dedication to peace"

Weapon used: one-ton missile fired from an Israeli F-16 warplane

'Collateral damage:' leveling of Mr. Shehadeh's house and three others nearby
(leaving a huge pile of smoking rubble in a poverty-stricken, crowded Palestinian
neighbourhood) killing Salah Shehada and 15 other civilians nine of them children.
At least 145 Palestinians were hurt

Official Palestinian reaction: the Palestinian National Authority strongly condemned
the attack

Official Israeli reaction: shortly after the strike, Mr. Sharon called the killing
of Mr. Shehadeh [i.e. the air raid] "one of our biggest successes."

Letters to the Editor: letters@nytimes.com

C.c.: Executive Editor: Howell Raines

Dear New York Times Editor:

re: Annan's Careless Language By GEORGE P. FLETCHER

In his article, George Fletcher argues that the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories (captured in the 1967 war) is not illegal. "It is not illegal for victorious powers to occupy hostile territory seized in the course of war until they are able to negotiate a successful peace treaty with their former enemies," he stresses. Based on this premise, Iraq had a right to occupy Kuwait for 35 years plus, until a settlement is negotiated, which would not necessarily mean withdrawal from all the Kuwaiti territories it occupied. This hypothesis also stipulates that a country of superior military might can occupy another country of inferior military power that it deems "hostile," subjugate its inhabitants for 35 years plus of humiliating military occupation, and, finally, when and if it sees fit to negotiate a settlement, retain portions of the occupied land. How is that different from the law of the jungle, I fail to see.

Regards,
Baha Abushaqra (Mr.)