DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction: the Palestinian Refugee Problem As an Impediment to Peace

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Notes Introduction: The Palestinian Refugee Problem as an Impediment to Peace 1. Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session Supplement No. 11, 16 September 1948, A/648. 2. United Nations General Assembly, 194 (III). Palestine: Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator, 11 December 1948, A/RES/194 (III). 3. M. Shertok to A. Eban, 15 July 1948, Tel.MH710, Yehoshua Freundlich (ed), Documents on the Foreign Policy of Israel (hereafter DFPI), Vol. 1, 14 May– 30 September 1948 (Jerusalem: Israel State Archives, 1982), p. 334. 4. Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, 16 September 1948, A/648; M. Shertok to Count Bernadotte (Tel Aviv), 1 August 1949, 93.03/94/11, DFPI, Vol. 1, pp. 441–4. 5. Ahmed Shukairy, ‘The Palestinian Refugees’, Excerpts from a Speech at the United Nations, 1958, in Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin (eds), The Arab– Israeli Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (New York: Penguin, 1995), pp. 119–21. 6. Abba Eban, ‘The Refugee Problem’, Excerpts from a Speech, 17 Novem- ber 1958, in Laqueur and Rubin (eds), The Arab–Israeli Reader (New York: Penguin, 1995), p. 138. 7. Article V: Transitional Period and Permanent Status Negotiations, Israel– PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, 13 September 1993, in Laqueur and Rubin (eds), The Arab–Israeli Reader, pp. 599–601. 8. The proceedings and offers made at the Camp David Summit of 2000 have been much disputed by participants and scholars alike, especially over the question of Israel’s offer to the Palestinian Authority. For firsthand accounts see, for example, Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (New York: Farrer, 2005); Bill Clinton, My Life: The Presidential Years (New York: Doubleday, 2004); Madeleine Albright, Madame Secretary (New York: Hyperion, 2003); Mahmoud Abbas, ‘Reports of the Camp David Summit, 9 September 2000’, Excerpts Published in The Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXX, No. 2 (Winter 2001), pp. 168–70; Gilead Sher, The Israeli–Palestinian Peace Negotiations, 1999–2001 (London: Routledge, 2006); For the academic debate on the subject see, Jeremy Pressman, ‘Visions in Collision – What Happened at Camp David and Taba’, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall 2003), pp. 5–43; Shimon Shamir and Bruce Maddy-Weitzman (eds), The Camp David Summit–What Went Wrong? Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians Analyze the Failure of the Boldest Attempt Ever to Resolve the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict (Brighton: Sussex Aca- demic Press, 2005); Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, ‘Camp David: The 191 192 Notes Tragedy of Errors’, New York Review of Books, Vol. 48, No. 13, 9 August 2001; Benny Morris, ‘Camp David and After: An Exchange 1. An Inter- view with Ehud Barak’, New York Review of Books, Vol. 49, No. 11, 13 June 2002; Ahron Bregman, Elusive Peace: How the Holy Land Defeated America (New York: Penguin, 2005); Aaron David Miller, Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab–Israeli Peace (New York: Random House, 2005); Itamar Rabinovich, Waging Peace: Israel and the Arabs, 1948–2003 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 9. Ross, The Missing Peace, pp. 719–20. 10. Ibid., pp. 720–5. 11. Legal Unit, Negotiations Support Unit to Dr Mahmoud Abbas, 2 January 2001, AlJazeera Transparency Unit, The Palestine Papers, http://www .ajtransparency.com/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/20121821232131550 .html (Last visited 08 July 2012). 12. Text: Beirut Declaration, BBC.co.uk, 28 March, 2002, http://news .bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1899395.stm (Last vis- ited 08 July 2012). 13. Ibid. 14. ‘Israel to offer counterproposal to Arab peace initiative, Peres says’, USA Today, 20 May 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05 -20-mideast_N.htm (Last visited 08 July 2012). 15. Ruth Lapidoth, ‘Israel and the Palestinians: Some Legal Issues’, The Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, The JUS Studies Series No. 94 (2003), pp. 48–9. 16. ‘Jewish State Call Alarms Mideast Press’, BBC.com, 15 November 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7096108.stm (Last visited 19 February 2013). 17. NSU to Palestinian Drafting team, ‘The Precondition of Recognizing Israel as a “Jewish State” ’, 13 November 2007, AlJazeera Transparency Unit, The Palestine Papers, http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/projects/ thepalestinepapers/20121823145359921.html (Last visited 08 July 2012). 18. Colin Shindler, ‘Can Israel Really Call Itself a “Jewish State”?’ The JC, 11 October 2012. 19. Saeb Erekat, ‘The Returning Issue of Palestine’s Refugees’, The Guardian, 10 December 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/ 10/israel-palestine-refugee-rights (Last visited 08 July 2012). 20. ‘Abbas Calls for Return of Palestinian Refugees’, Jerusalem Post, 23 Septem- ber 2011. 21. Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of ‘Transfer’ in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948 (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Stud- ies, 1992); David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch (London: Faber and Faber, 2003); Walid Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest: Zionism and the Palestinian Problem Until 1948 (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1971); Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (London: Oneworld Publications, 2007). 22. Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians. 23. Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, pp. 253–4. 24. Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 165. 25. Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians, pp. 177–9. Notes 193 26. Morris, The Birth Revisited, pp. 164–5; This is slightly in contrast to Morris’ earlier study in which he called Plan D ‘a strategic-ideological anchor’, Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 63. 27. Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (London: Penguin, 2001), p. 31. 28. Ibid. 29. Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestine Refugee Problem (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2001), p. 98. 30. Nadav Safran, From War to War: The Arab–Israeli Confrontation, 1948–1967 (New York: Pegasus, 1969), pp. 34–5. 31. Joseph B. Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), p. 3. 32. Ibid., pp. 55–7. 33. Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill (London: Secker & Warburg, 1960), p. 124. 34. Morris, The Birth, pp. 84–5. 35. Ibid., p. 67. 36. Erskine Childers, ‘The Other Exodus’, The Spectator, 12 May 1961, pp. 8–11. 37. Walid Khalidi, ‘Why Did the Palestinians Leave Revisited’, Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XXXIV, No. 2 (Winter 2005), pp. 43–8. 38. Morris, The Birth, p. 290. 39. Deir Yassin was a village that was attacked by Zionist underground forces on 9 April 1948 in which over 100 residents were killed (the original figure quoted and taken up by the Arab media was 254 dead) including women and children with incidents of reported rape and looting. For scholarly accounts see, Gelber, Palestine 1948, pp. 307–18; Uri Milstein, History of the War of Independence Vol. 4: Out of Crisis Came Decision (New York: Univer- sity Press of America, 1996); Walid Khalidi, All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992); Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest; Benny Morris, ‘The Historiography of Deir Yassin’, Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2005, pp. 79–107. 40. Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948: The First Arab–Israeli War (New York: Signet, 1972), p. 183. 41. Arthur Koestler, Promise and Fulfilment: Palestine 1917–1949 (London: Macmillan, 1949), p. 160. 42. Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World (London: W.H. Allen, 1970), pp. 458–60. 43. Ibid., pp. 460–2. 44. William R. Polk, David M. Stamler, and Edmund Asfour, Backdrop to Tragedy: The Struggle for Palestine (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), p. 290. 45. Ibid., pp. 292–4. 46. Morris, The Birth, pp. 114–5. 47. Nafez Nazzal, The Palestinian Exodus from Galilee 1948 (Beirut: The Institute for Palestine Studies, 1978), pp. 102–9. 48. Morris, The Birth, p. 123. 49. Rony E. Gabbay, A Political Study of the Arab–Jewish Conflict (Geneve: Libraire E. Droz, 1959), pp. 83–4. 194 Notes 50. Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p. 264. 51. Morris, The Birth, pp. 287–8. 52. Shabtai Teveth, ‘The Palestine Arab Refugee Problem and Its Origins: Review Article’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, (April 1990), p. 214–9. 53. Efraim Karsh, 1948, ‘Israel and the Palestinians: Annotated Text’, Commen- tary, May 2008, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/ 1948--israel--and-the-palestinians--annotated-text-11373?search=1 (Last vis- ited 31 October 2008). 54. Ibid. 55. Morris, The Birth. 56. Gabbay, A Political Study of the Arab–Jewish Conflict, p. 54; Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem,p.3. 57. Teveth, ‘The Palestine Arab Refugee Problem and Its Origins’, pp. 219–20; Also see Shabtai Teveth, ‘Charging Israel with Original Sin’, Commentary, Vol. 88, No. 3, (September 1989), pp. 28–30. 58. Avi Shlaim, ‘The Debate About 1948’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, (1995), p. 288. 59. Avi Shlaim, Collusion across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). 60. Ilan Pappe, Britain and the Arab–Israeli Conflict, 1948–51 (Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1988). 61. Benny Morris, ‘Politics by Other Means’, The New Republic, 22 March 2004. 62. Efraim Karsh, ‘Rewriting Israel’s History’, Middle East Quarterly,Vol.3, No. 2, (June 1996), pp. 23–6; ‘Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion, and the “transfer” idea’, Israel Affairs, Vol.
Recommended publications
  • Negotiating in Times of Conflict

    Negotiating in Times of Conflict

    cover Negotiating in Times of Conflict Gilead Sher and Anat Kurz, Editors Institute for National Security Studies The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), incorporating the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, was founded in 2006. The purpose of the Institute for National Security Studies is first, to conduct basic research that meets the highest academic standards on matters related to Israel’s national security as well as Middle East regional and international security affairs. Second, the Institute aims to contribute to the public debate and governmental deliberation of issues that are – or should be – at the top of Israel’s national security agenda. INSS seeks to address Israeli decision makers and policymakers, the defense establishment, public opinion makers, the academic community in Israel and abroad, and the general public. INSS publishes research that it deems worthy of public attention, while it maintains a strict policy of non-partisanship. The opinions expressed in this publication are the authors’ alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute, its trustees, boards, research staff, or the organizations and individuals that support its research. Negotiating in Times of Conflict Gilead Sher and Anat Kurz, Editors משא ומתן בעת סכסוך גלעד שר וענת קורץ, עורכים Graphic design: Michal Semo-Kovetz and Yael Bieber Cover design: Tali Niv-Dolinsky Printing: Elinir Institute for National Security Studies (a public benefit company) 40 Haim Levanon Street POB 39950 Ramat Aviv Tel Aviv 6997556 Israel Tel. +972-3-640-0400 Fax. +972-3-744-7590 E-mail: [email protected] http:// www.inss.org.il © 2015 All rights reserved.
  • Miriam Elman CV

    Miriam Elman CV

    MIRIAM F. ELMAN, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Political Science Inaugural Robert D. McClure Professor of Teaching Excellence Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs Syracuse University SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY POSITIONS: ■ Research Director: Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC) ■ Member of the Advisory Board and Steering Committee: Jewish Studies Program (JSP) | Middle Eastern Studies Program (MESP) ■ Faculty Affiliate: Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT) PREVIOUS POSITIONS: Associate & Assistant Professor Department of Political Science, Arizona State University (1996-2008) Faculty Affiliate Jewish Studies Program, Arizona State University (1996-2008) Instructor Department of Political Science, Arizona State University (1995-1996) Research Fellow Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (1995-1996 and 1998-2000) Sergeant, Air Force, Israel Defense Forces (1983-1985) CONTACT INFORMATION: 400G Eggers Hall Syracuse, New York, 13244-1020 Tel: 315-443-7404 Fax: 315-443-9082 Email: [email protected] SOCIAL MEDIA: Webpage Twitter Facebook Columns at Legal Insurrection 2 EDUCATION 1996 Ph.D. Columbia University Political Science 1993 M.Phil. Columbia University Political Science 1990 M.A. Degree Studies Hebrew University International Relations of Jerusalem, Israel 1989 Secondary School Hebrew University Teaching Certificate of Jerusalem, Israel 1988 B.A. (cum laude) Hebrew University International Relations
  • Case #2 United States of America (Respondent)

    Case #2 United States of America (Respondent)

    Model International Court of Justice (MICJ) Case #2 United States of America (Respondent) Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America) Arkansas Model United Nations (AMUN) November 20-21, 2020 Teeter 1 Historical Context For years, there has been a consistent struggle between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine led by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In 2018, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. embassy located in Tel Aviv would be moving to the city of Jerusalem.1 Palestine, angered by the embassy moving, filed a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2018.2 The history of this case, U.S. relations with Israel and Palestine, current events, and why the ICJ should side with the United States will be covered in this research paper. Israel and Palestine have an interesting relationship between war and competition. In 1948, Israel captured the west side of Jerusalem, and the Palestinians captured the east side during the Arab-Israeli War. Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948. In 1949, the Lausanne Conference took place, and the UN came to the decision for “corpus separatum” which split Jerusalem into a Jewish zone and an Arab zone.3 At this time, the State of Israel decided that Jerusalem was its “eternal capital.”4 “Corpus separatum,” is a Latin term meaning “a city or region which is given a special legal and political status different from its environment, but which falls short of being sovereign, or an independent city-state.”5 1 Office of the President, 82 Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of the State of Israel and Relocating the United States Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem § (2017).
  • Strategic Assessment, Vol 16, No 1

    Strategic Assessment, Vol 16, No 1

    Volume 16 | No. 1 | April 2013 Leading from Behind: The “Obama Doctrine” and US Policy in the Middle East | Sanford Lakoff Eleven Years to the Arab Peace Initiative: Time for an Israeli Regional Strategy | Ilai Alon and Gilead Sher The Emergence of the Sunni Axis in the Middle East | Yoel Guzansky and Gallia Lindenstrauss Islam and Democracy: Can the Two Walk Together? | Yoav Rosenberg The US and Israel on Iran: Whither the (Dis)Agreement? | Ephraim Kam Walking a Fine Line: Israel, India, and Iran | Yiftah S. Shapir Response Essays Civilian Casualties of a Military Strike in Iran | Ephraim Asculai If it Comes to Force: A Credible Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Military Option against Iran | Amos Yadlin, Emily B. Landau, and Avner Golov המכון למחקרי ביטחון לאומי THE INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURcITY STUDIES INCORPORATING THE JAFFEE bd CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES Strategic ASSESSMENT Volume 16 | No. 1 | April 2013 CONTENTS Abstracts | 3 Leading from Behind: The “Obama Doctrine” and US Policy in the Middle East | 7 Sanford Lakoff Eleven Years to the Arab Peace Initiative: Time for an Israeli Regional Strategy | 21 Ilai Alon and Gilead Sher The Emergence of the Sunni Axis in the Middle East | 37 Yoel Guzansky and Gallia Lindenstrauss Islam and Democracy: Can the Two Walk Together? | 49 Yoav Rosenberg The US and Israel on Iran: Whither the (Dis)Agreement? | 61 Ephraim Kam Walking a Fine Line: Israel, India, and Iran | 75 Yiftah S. Shapir Response Essays Civilian Casualties of a Military Strike in Iran | 87 Ephraim Asculai If it Comes to Force: A Credible Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Military Option against Iran | 95 Amos Yadlin, Emily B.
  • Mustang Daily, April 14, 1997

    Mustang Daily, April 14, 1997

    Campus Opinion Sports Cal Poly's most dedicated student Petition peeves pro-Poly Plan people. The Cal Poly football team has hired a employee was honored new coach. Find out who the lucky Thursday. applicant is. 8 CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY SAN LUIS OBISPO usdvng aiiy M APRIL 14, 1997 VOLUME D LXI, No. 98 , M O N D A Y Expert discusses Middle East peace Upcoming Barry Rubin attributes problems to economic student vote development, recognition of existing governmentsworries By Emily Brodley Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan Doily Staff Writer University in Tel Aviv, Israel. His expertise in terrorism led The Middle East is a region of him to appearances on television Committee conflict and turmoil, but according programs such as “Nightline,” By Emily Bradley to speaker Barry Rubin, it is also a “CBS News,” ‘The MacNeil-Lehrer Daily Stoff Writer place of hope. NewsHour” and “Larry King Live.” He has also edited three books lV Optimism flowed during the Tensions are rising for the Cal talk “Conflict and Peacemaking in on terrorism and his articles have appeared in The New York Times, Poly Plan Steering Committee as the Middle East” Thursday night, it rounds the final stretch of the presented by an authority on ter­ the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New Republic planning process before the April rorism and the Middle East to 29 and May 1 student votes. more than 45 students and com­ and the Jerusalem Post. Thursday night’s topics focused In its meeting Thursday munity members in the on the long-term issues facing the evening, the committee (composed Performing Arts Center.
  • European Reactions to the Migrant Crisis

    European Reactions to the Migrant Crisis

    European reactions to the migrant crisis Jérôme Fourquet Director of Ifop’s Opinion and Corporate Strategies Department How is European public opinion reacting to the arrival of migrants on the shores of Italy and Greece? What are their perceptions of the profile and number of migrants? How do the citizens of the different European Union (EU) countries regard the solutions put in place by their government? To answer these questions, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation and the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) appointed Ifop to carry out a major opinion poll in seven European countries – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK, based on a sample of 1000 to 1100 people in each country. A. Responding to the crisis by assisting with the development of the countries of departure In view of the magnitude of the migration crisis, European public opinion is united in favour of assisting with the development and stabilisation of southern Mediterranean countries to keep people where they are. This option comes well ahead of developing aid and welcome programmes for immigrants to European countries, tightening border controls or military intervention in Syria. As can be seen in the following chart, the level of public support for assisting with development varies from country to country, but it came out on top everywhere, except in France, where the option “strengthening border controls and combatting illegal immigration” came nominally first, with 30% of votes (by far the highest score noted in the seven countries covered by the survey) compared to 29% for assisting with development. The most effective action for EU countries to resolve the refugee crisis Question: For months, migrants have been crossing the Mediterranean by boat and arriving in their tens of thousands on the shores of Italy and Greece.
  • The British Labour Party and Zionism, 1917-1947 / by Fred Lennis Lepkin

    The British Labour Party and Zionism, 1917-1947 / by Fred Lennis Lepkin

    THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY AND ZIONISM: 1917 - 1947 FRED LENNIS LEPKIN BA., University of British Columbia, 196 1 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History @ Fred Lepkin 1986 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY July 1986 All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. Name : Fred Lennis Lepkin Degree: M. A. Title of thesis: The British Labour Party and Zionism, - Examining Committee: J. I. Little, Chairman Allan B. CudhgK&n, ior Supervisor . 5- - John Spagnolo, ~upervis&y6mmittee Willig Cleveland, Supepiso$y Committee -Lenard J. Cohen, External Examiner, Associate Professor, Political Science Dept.,' Simon Fraser University Date Approved: August 11, 1986 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay The British Labour Party and Zionism, 1917 - 1947.
  • Israel's Policies in Relation to African Asylum Seekers

    Israel's Policies in Relation to African Asylum Seekers

    Israel’s Policies in Relation to African Asylum Seekers Abstract Since mid 2005, Israel has become a destination for thousands of Africans who are willing to take a long and risky journey to the country in order to escape the harsh realities of their own surroundings. However, Israel’s policies towards asylum seekers have been mostly exclusionary and at times contradictory in nature which has mainly aimed at controlling and limiting entrance to its territory. Israel also does not have a proper system in place to monitor this influx. Nonetheless, once as per the authorities, a critical threshold has been crossed, asylum seekers are seen as a threat which can no longer be allowed to enter the territory. Accommodating measures have also often been rejected by citing self-preservation considerations. But despite this, the Asylum crisis in Israel is only known to few and very little is written about the meaning and significance of these developments. Keywords: Israel, Asylum Seekers, African, Policy, Non-refoulement. ***** 1 “International refugee law is in crisis…while governments proclaim a willingness to assist refugees as a matter of political discretion or humanitarian goodwill, they appear committed to a pattern of defensive strategies designed to avoid international legal responsibility toward involuntary migrants.”1 The above observation made by Professors James Hathaway and R. Alexander Neve, undoubtedly, sums up the current disregard of international refugee law by States. The above statement reflects upon the unwillingness on part of States to provide refugee status to asylum seekers who flee their home countries because of fear of persecution.2 Moreover, the people who flee to other States to seek refuge are dealt with in a harsh manner and are even forced to leave and never return.
  • Syrian Refugee Crisis

    Syrian Refugee Crisis

    1 THE ILO RESPONSE to the SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS UPDATE APRIL 2018 3 THE ILO RESPONSE TO THE SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS To date, the ILO has implemented an array of interventions in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to promote decent work amongst Syrian refugees and host communities, contributing to building resilience and long term economic and social development in host countries. The ILO strategy focuses on the following areas of response: • Support evidence-based policy development and strengthen institutional ILO STRATEGY FOR SUPPORT capacities for a well-coordinated, employment-rich national response • Facilitate access to livelihood opportunities through labour-intensive The Syrian refugee crisis is one of the most protracted and complex humanitarian emergencies of work, skills development, and entrepreneurship development modern time. It has led to the displacement of more than 12 million Syrians since 2011, more than • Strengthen labour market governance for improved compliance with five million of whom are registered refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. fundamental principles and rights at work – including for the elimination of child labour Within the framework of the Regional Refugee Response and Resilience Plan (3RP), the ILO has adopted a development-focused and employment-driven strategy to support host communities and “It is not just jobs but decent jobs that make all the difference in the lives refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. It aims to preserve social and economic stability and build of Syrian refugees and the communities hosting them.” resilience at the national level, in line with national plans and local chapters of the 3RP. Embedded in Ruba Jaradat the principles of decent work, the ILO strategy builds on its core mandate to promote employment, , Assistant Director General and Regional Director social dialogue, social protection and international labour standards.
  • Palestine Vision of the Palestinian Lands Between 67/2012, the Palestinians Are Seeing That Olive Became a Tree

    Palestine Vision of the Palestinian Lands Between 67/2012, the Palestinians Are Seeing That Olive Became a Tree

    It all started with two promises: a Jewish National Home and a Arab State in Pala- estine by the British government during the World War I. “DON´T LET THE OLIVE BRANCH The British Mandate in Palaestina, who- se administration replaced the Otto- FALL FROM MY HAND”. of book the man Empire after World War I, found it the difficult to succeed in the beginning of When Yasser Arafat first went to speak at the United Nations General Assemby, he said that he the hostilities between Arabs and Jews came “bearing an olive branch in one hand and a freedom fighter´s gun in the other”, and conclu- in the 20´s and 30´s. ded: “don´t let the olive branch fall from my hand”. In order to find a viable solution to During the last decades, the olive branch lived together with the gun, at the same time. Sometimes the problem, it was agreed by the Peel the olive branch fell on the ground, sometimes does not. book Commission that there would be a di- In many situations described in this book, and especially since Oslo Accords and the Resolution palestine vision of the Palestinian lands between 67/2012, the palestinians are seeing that olive became a tree. the two peoples, with the creation of This book is dedicated to peace, not war. two sovereign States. England was so- There is one point that has to be acknowleged: in the Palestinian conflict there are no heroes or lely responsible for resolving the issues villains. For that sense, this book sought to demonstrate that these and other realities are part of in Palaestina during their administration of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict that originated during the British Mandate for territorial issues, on behalf of the League of Nations.
  • Memorandum of Conversation Between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and US President Jimmy Carter (19 July 1977)

    Memorandum of Conversation Between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and US President Jimmy Carter (19 July 1977)

    1 Memorandum of Conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and US President Jimmy Carter (19 July 1977) National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Middle East File, Subject File, Box 66, Middle East: Peace Negotiations 1977 Volume I. The Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta GA. November 16, 2017 Prime Minister Menachem Begin and President Jimmy Carter meet at the White House. Ya’acov Sa’ar / Israel National Photos In May 1977, Menachem Begin was unexpectedly elected Israel’s Seventh Prime Minister. Since the US was Israel’s most important ally, it was custom for every Israeli Prime Minister to meet the American president as early as possible after new elections. As his predecessor Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had done two months earlier, Begin made immediate plans to meet President Carter. In preparing for his Washington visit, Begin read the protocols of the tough Rabin-Carter encounters in March. Carter had already denied Israel weapons promised by his predecessor, Gerald Ford, and was the first president to publically promote a Palestinian homeland. Begin had also heard about Carter’s declarations regarding Israeli withdrawal from most of the territories Israel had captured in the defensive war of June 1967. Begin fervently believed that the West Bank was an integral part of the Jewish homeland, and consequently opposed any foreign sovereignty over the territory. Begin had no such emotional feeling for the Sinai Peninsula. At this preliminary meeting, Begin sought to establish a positive rapport with Carter and gave Carter a negotiating plan to focus on Sinai. As for Carter, he insisted on a comprehensive negotiating format that required Israel to negotiate with all Arab states and the PLO.
  • United Nations A/HRC/23/NGO/1

    United Nations A/HRC/23/NGO/1

    United Nations A/HRC/23/NGO/1 General Assembly Distr.: General 14 May 2013 English only Human Rights Council Twenty-third session Agenda item 7 Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories Written statement* submitted by the Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples (MRAP), a non- governmental organization on the roster The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. [19 April 2013] * This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non-governmental organization(s). GE.13-13576 A/HRC/23/NGO/1 Final Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine: time for accountability On 16th and 17th March 2013, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine held its final session in Brussels1 in order to summarize the violations of international law by State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as well as the responsibility of the international community and the private sector in assisting the State of Israel in its violations of international law. I. The particular violations of international law committed by Israel As noted by the Tribunal at its previous sessions, well documented acts committed by Israel constitute violations of the basic rules of international law2: • violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination codified in resolutions 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV); • in relation to the construction of the wall, as stated at Paragraph