Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: Part V (1989-2000)

Summary

A United Nations study continuing Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: Part IV (1984-1988) from 1989 to 2000, prepared for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. In the part read so far: an Introduction framing the 1990s from the Madrid conference and the Oslo Declaration of Principles through the inconclusive Camp David Summit of July 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada; section I on the question of Palestine before the General Assembly — the Committee, self-determination including a State, Palestine’s expanded participation rights under resolution 52/250, the proposed international peace conference under United Nations auspices, and Bethlehem 2000; and section II, on the need for protection of the Palestinians under occupation, through the First Intifada and its casualty figures, the 8 October 1990 Al-Haram Al-Sharif violence and resolutions 672, 673 and 681, deportations through the 415 deportees of 17 December 1992 and resolution 799, the Hebron massacre of 25 February 1994 and resolution 904, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, closures and curfews, settlement activities including at Jabal Abu Ghneim (the Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly and the 1999 Geneva Conference of the High Contracting Parties), the human rights situation, and the Second Intifada; and section III, on the peace process of the 1990s, through the Madrid Conference’s bilateral and multilateral tracks and the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: Part V (1989-2000), PDF p.1-52).

What the file is

The PDF of the fifth part of the United Nations study The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem, covering 1989-2000, published at New York in 2014 (PDF p.2). The text copy is 93 PDF pages with === PDF p.N === markers and about 66,468 words (6,023 lines in its wrapped layout). The body in full is an Introduction, five numbered sections (I. The question of Palestine and related issues before the General Assembly, A-E; II. The need for protection of the Palestinians under occupation, A-J; III. The peace process of the 1990s, A-H; IV. Living conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and assistance, A-E; V. Conclusion), Annexes I-V, and two maps (“Jerusalem Occupied and Expanded by Israel in June 1967”, printed p.16, at PDF p.20; “Greater Jerusalem Area”, printed p.26, at PDF p.30). Printed page numbers run from i-ii (contents) and 1 onward, offset by four from the PDF pages in the body (printed p.1 is PDF p.5). Footnotes are numbered continuously through the work and are printed at the foot of the page where they are cited; notes 1/ to 110/ fall in the range read so far. The text copy is clean body text except that PDF p.20, a map, appears in the text copy as only the printed page number; the map was read in the original. Parts 1-2 read PDF p.1-52: the cover, title page and contents, the Introduction, section I in full, section II in full (subsections A-J, ending with the second intifada), and section III through subsection B (Declaration of Principles, in progress at PDF p.52 / printed p.48). The text copy gives only the printed page number for both map pages (PDF p.20 and p.30); both maps were read in the original.

Section by section

• Introduction (PDF p.5-7 / printed p.1-3): The publication was prepared for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; covering 1989 through 2000, it updates the earlier publication. The Madrid conference of 1991 brought together for the first time all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the core of which is the question of Palestine, seeking a comprehensive negotiated settlement based on resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and “land for peace”. At the beginning progress was extremely slow for the Palestinians, who were compelled to negotiate without the presence of a Palestinian representative at the table. Only the mutual recognition of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and their agreement reached at Oslo in 1993, the Declaration of Principles, sustained hope of a permanent settlement. In December 1994, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat shared, together with Shimon Peres, the Nobel Peace Prize. A new framework was created without prejudging the “permanent status” issues: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, and water. Tangible progress included redeployment of Israeli forces from some Palestinian areas occupied since 1967, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, elections for its Presidency and Legislative Council, release of Palestinian prisoners, the opening of a Palestinian international airport and a land corridor connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since 1992 the United Nations participated in the multilateral negotiations as a “full extraregional participant”; in 1994 it established UNSCO, and in 1999 the Secretary-General appointed the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative to the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. The occupation continued, however: Israel expanded the settler population and implemented strict closure policies widely regarded as collective punishment. The Palestine refugees numbered more than 3.7 million people in the 1990s; the Assembly each year recalled their right of return and compensation under UN General Assembly Resolution 194, and UNRWA remained the largest provider of humanitarian assistance, commemorating 50 years of operation and returning its headquarters to Gaza City. A vast asymmetry of power persisted; outstanding commitments accumulated; negotiations repeatedly ground to a halt. The assassination of Rabin in 1995 by an Israeli extremist also negatively impacted the peace process. By the end of 2000 the search had come full circle: many positive developments had stalled or been reversed, in particular as a result of the reoccupation of Palestinian population centres by Israel in September 2000 with the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada. The inconclusive Camp David Summit of July 2000 between Ehud Barak and Arafat, mediated by Bill Clinton, epitomized the lack of progress; the deadline to achieve a permanent status agreement not later than 13 September 2000 passed unfulfilled. The demonstrative visit on 28 September 2000 by Israel’s opposition party leader to Al-Haram Al-Sharif provoked violence that escalated into the “Al-Aqsa intifada” or Second Intifada; Israel’s response, in particular the excessive use of force, led to growing loss of Palestinian life, including many casualties among children. From 1989 to 2000 the United Nations balanced supporting the peace process with upholding the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; the Assembly determined in annual resolutions since 1992 that the United Nations had a permanent responsibility for the question until its satisfactory resolution. From 1993 a resolution entitled “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” expressed support for the peace process; the “Middle East peace process” resolution, introduced in 1993 by Norway with the Russian Federation and the United States for more than 100 sponsors, was adopted annually until withdrawn in 1997. Since 1994 the Assembly annually reiterated that Israel’s imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem was illegal and null and void, and in 1997, under its “uniting for peace” mechanism, it convened the tenth emergency special session on “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, the first such session in 15 years; in 1999 the first conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on measures to enforce the Convention was convened pursuant to that session’s recommendation. Violations were annually recorded by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories; in 1993 the Commission on Human Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the territories occupied since 1967. The study states the United Nations position that a solution would comprise Israeli withdrawal from the territory occupied since June 1967, including East Jerusalem; exercise of the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights, primarily self-determination and statehood; a just settlement of the refugee problem unresolved since 1948; and respect for the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized boundaries.

• Section I.A. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (PDF p.7-8 / printed p.3-4): The Committee, the only body within the United Nations exclusively devoted to the question of Palestine, supported the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting solution in accordance with international legitimacy. In the late 1980s and early 1990s it promoted the Assembly’s calls for an international peace conference under United Nations auspices and, later, the Madrid process and the Oslo bilateral initiative; it welcomed the bilateral agreements, the redeployment of Israeli forces and the Palestinian elections, while reaffirming that until final status negotiations succeed Israel must respect its obligations as the occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It contributed to the Palestinian Authority’s “Bethlehem 2000” initiative. By the late 1990s it voiced increasing concern at the stalemate, participated in Security Council and Assembly meetings including the tenth emergency special session, and began exchanging views with the European Union. While condemning all acts of violence against civilians, it expressed alarm at Israel’s actions on Jerusalem, settlements, land confiscation and punitive collective measures, heightened after the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000 (note 1/). Its novel activities 1989-2000 included assistance seminars, an annual training programme for Palestinian Authority staff, and establishing UNISPAL; it supported the UNCCP records project requested by resolution 51/129 (1996), completed in 2000 (note 2/); in June 1997 it convened a special meeting for the thirtieth anniversary of the occupation, attended by the Secretary-General, the President of the Security Council and a Vice-President of the General Assembly.

• Section I.B. The right to self-determination, including to a State, as an inalienable right (PDF p.8-10 / printed p.4-6): Since 1974 the United Nations has reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights, including self-determination without external interference and national independence and sovereignty (see UN General Assembly Resolution 3236). Interim, quasi-governmental institutions were established under the peace process; the five-year transitional period under the Interim Agreement expired on 4 May 1999 without final status negotiations having begun in substantive terms. That year the Palestinians held back from unilaterally declaring an independent State, and the European Union reaffirmed “the continued and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination, including the option of a State” (note 3/, Berlin Statement of 25 March 1999). Resolution 44/79 reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence and liberation “by all available means, including armed struggle”, and strongly condemned the constant and deliberate violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and Israel’s expansionist activities; similar resolutions followed 1990-1993 (note 4/). Resolution 46/130 (17 December 1991) reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of all peoples under colonial and foreign domination, particularly the Palestinian people. Under “Situation in the Middle East” (resolutions 44/40, 45/83, 46/82) the Assembly maintained that a solution must enable the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights, including return and sovereign statehood in Palestine. On 20 December 1993 the Assembly, in its last self-determination resolution with a specific reference to the Palestinian people, took note of the signing of the Declaration of Principles on 13 September 1993 and called on Israel to refrain from violating Palestinian fundamental rights and denying self-determination (resolution 48/94); the same day, resolution 48/158, “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”, reaffirmed six principles, the first being “the realization of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination”. On 23 December 1994 the Assembly for the first time adopted a resolution devoted exclusively to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination (resolution 49/149); the most recent and most strongly worded in this part, resolution 55/87, was adopted by 170 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 5 abstentions. From 1996 to 2000 the Assembly annually adopted resolutions on the Palestinian people’s permanent sovereignty over their natural resources (resolutions 51/190, 52/207, 53/196, 54/230, 55/209). Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/34 declared that Palestinian women could not fully attain equality, development and peace without realizing their inalienable rights of return, self-determination and an independent State (note 5/). The Secretary-General is quoted (November 1991): “the yearning of the Palestinian people to exercise their legitimate political rights, including self-determination” lies at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict (A/46/652-S/23225, para. 27); Kofi Annan, the first Secretary-General to visit the Occupied Palestinian Territory following the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, told the Palestinian Legislative Council on 23 March 1998: “At every juncture and every passage, with every challenge and every success, the United Nations has stood by the proponents of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people … Your cause - genuine self-determination for the Palestinian people - is our cause.” In 1996 the Secretary-General stated that the widespread participation in the 20 January elections constituted an important step toward the achievement of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and provided a solid base toward their self-determination.

• Section I.C. Palestine’s expanded rights of participation at the United Nations (PDF p.10-12 / printed p.6-8): The United Nations conferred additional rights and privileges upon Palestine in its capacity as observer. Since 1976 the Security Council has invited the PLO to take part in its deliberations on the Middle East and the question of Palestine; by January 1989 the Council had accepted Palestine’s request to speak directly to the Council on other issues, on the same basis as Member States; in February and September 1999 Palestine participated in the Council debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The Assembly called in resolution 45/37 (28 November 1990) for facilities, privileges and immunities for delegations of recognized national liberation movements. By decision 48/417 (10 December 1993) a PLO representative began attending meetings of UNRWA’s Advisory Commission. Resolution 49/12 B applied Member State or observer State fiftieth-anniversary arrangements to Palestine, so Arafat fully participated in the commemorative event. Resolution 52/250 (7 July 1998), “Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations”, conferred additional rights listed in the Secretary-General’s note of 4 August 1998 (A/52/1002 and Corr.1): participation in the general debate; inscription on the speakers list after the last Member State on items other than Palestinian and Middle East issues; the right of reply; the right to raise points of order on Palestinian and Middle East proceedings, without challenging the presiding officer; the right to co-sponsor draft resolutions and decisions on Palestinian and Middle East issues, put to a vote only on a Member State’s request; interventions, with the precursory explanation made only once per session; and seating immediately after non-Member States and before other observers, with six seats — and the restriction that Palestine shall not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates. On 28 September 1998 Palestine for the first time participated in the general debate, when President Arafat addressed the fifty-third session, and it commenced co-sponsoring draft resolutions. A boxed focus records the Committee’s repeated objection to the Security Council’s 1996 decision to delete Palestine-related items from the list of items of which it is seized (S/1996/603, S/1996/667, S/1998/134, S/2000/253). The Assembly also requested continued use of the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (decision 53/424), renamed the Special Committee in resolution 44/48 A, and for the first time published official population statistics on the Palestinians in the Territory (ESA/P/WP.165). Note 6/ recalls resolution 43/177 (15 December 1988), which decided that “the designation ‘Palestine’ should be used in place of the designation ‘Palestine Liberation Organization’ in the United Nations system”. A second boxed focus records the unresolved 1990 credentials issue: a proposed amendment would have indicated that Israel’s delegation’s credentials did not relate to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem; no vote was taken following a compromise, and related developments led in May 2004 to resolution 58/292 on the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

• Section I.D. Proposed international peace conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations (PDF p.12-15 / printed p.8-11): Against the backdrop of the first intifada, the Assembly garnered unprecedented, almost unanimous support for convening an international peace conference under United Nations auspices, an idea that gained momentum at the Geneva International Conference on the Question of Palestine in 1983, whose Declaration called for a conference in which all parties, including the PLO, would participate on an equal footing (note 7/). Israel and the United States continued to reject it. From late 1988 to the mid-1990s, the United States and PLO engaged in first ever direct negotiations at Tunis (note 8/, the Pelletreau–Abed Rabbo talks). Support peaked in 1989: resolution 43/176 (1988, adopted at Geneva by 138 to 2, with 2 abstentions) set forth five principles for comprehensive peace; on 6 December 1989 an unprecedented majority of 151 Member States voted in favour of resolution 44/42, “Question of Palestine” (adopted 151 to 3, with 1 abstention, note 9/), reaffirming the conference call on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338 and principles (a)-(e) — Israeli withdrawal from the territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; security arrangements for all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181 (II); resolving the refugee problem in conformity with resolution 194 (III); dismantling the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967; and guaranteeing freedom of access to Holy Places. The Assembly also noted the desire to place the territory under United Nations supervision for a limited period, and until 1990 endorsed a preparatory committee within the Security Council framework, which was never established. The call was repeated in resolutions 45/68 and 46/75, and qualified in resolution 47/64 D as contributing “at a certain stage”; resolutions 44/40 A and 45/83 B also reaffirmed it. After the Madrid Peace Conference launched on 30 October 1991, the call disappeared from the “Situation in the Middle East” resolutions; resolution 46/82 A (16 December 1991) declared “once more that peace in the Middle East is indivisible”. The Security Council President’s statement of 20 December 1990 (S/22027) agreed that “an international conference, at an appropriate time, properly structured, should facilitate efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement”, while recording no unanimity as to when. On 22 March 1991 the Secretary-General appointed Edouard Brunner of Switzerland as Special Representative to the Middle East, succeeding Gunnar Jarring (S/22385); Brunner represented the United Nations at Madrid as an observer. The Assembly’s call ceased after the mutual recognition and the signing of the Declaration of Principles on 13 September 1993; two series evolved — “peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” and, until 1996, “Middle East peace process” (from resolution 48/58 of 14 December 1993). The Committee endorsed the call from 1989 to 1993, urged Israel and the United States to reconsider (note 11/), and in its annual report of 18 November 1993 still gave priority to “the convening, at a certain stage, of an international peace conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations” (A/48/35, para. 40), while expressing support for the Madrid bilateral negotiations and welcoming the Declaration of Principles as an important first step (paras. 41-42).

• Section I.E. Bethlehem 2000 (PDF p.15 / printed p.11): Approximately 2 million visitors were expected in Bethlehem for the millennium. In 1997 the Palestinian Authority launched the Bethlehem 2000 Project to restore religious and historical sites and rebuild infrastructure after years of military occupation. The Committee promoted the project. The Bethlehem 2000 Participants Conference, held in Brussels on 11 and 12 May 1998 and convened with the European Commission, UNDP, UNESCO and the World Bank, drew some 600 representatives. The Committee authorized requesting a new agenda item, “Bethlehem 2000”; resolution 53/27 was adopted unanimously for commemorations from Christmas 1999 to Easter 2001, and resolutions 53/27, 54/22 and 55/18 were adopted without a vote at the fifty-third to fifty-fifth sessions. Resolution 55/18, against the backdrop of the second intifada, stressed free and unhindered access to Bethlehem’s holy places and concluded consideration of the item. The Bethlehem 2000 International Conference was convened by the Committee at FAO headquarters in Rome on 18-19 February 1999; the project was also highlighted at the Cairo Seminar on 20-21 June 2000, discussed with the European Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States and NGOs, disseminated through UNISPAL, and given a separate Department of Public Information website under resolution 54/41 (A/55/370).

• Section II. The need for protection of the Palestinians under occupation (PDF p.16 / printed p.12, introduction): The international community recognized the urgent need for international protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation in accordance with international law and human rights instruments, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention. The period began and concluded with a major Palestinian uprising, or intifada; the two uprisings were widely regarded as powerful expressions of the Palestinians’ long-frustrated national aspirations and rejection of their legitimate demands, together with their oppression under Israeli occupation.

• Section II.A. First intifada (PDF p.16-19 / printed p.12-15): The uprising erupted on 9 December 1987 and lasted until the middle of 1993 (note 12/). As a result of the excessive use of force by Israel, Palestinian deaths by shooting, beating or tear gas rose to approximately 1,240 by August 1993, and the injured to an estimated 130,000; approximately one fourth of the fatalities were children under the age of 16 (A/48/35, para. 22). Thousands were detained and hundreds transferred to prisons in Israel or deported; scores of homes were destroyed or sealed; schools and universities were closed for extended periods; villages were placed under curfew; tens of thousands of productive trees were uprooted and crops destroyed as collective punishment (note 13/). In 1989 the Special Committee noted that the level of violence and repression was unprecedented in over 22 years of military occupation. The killing of an Israeli in the “Nissanit” settlement and of two Israeli policemen at the end of March 1993 led Israel to impose on 30 March 1993 a complete closure, dividing the Territory into four distinct areas — the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the northern West Bank and the southern West Bank (notes 14/-15/). After the Declaration of Principles, sporadic confrontations were still met with harsh repressive measures (note 16/). The Security Council remained paralyzed: draft resolutions of 16 February 1989 (S/20463), 9 June 1989 (S/20677) and 6 November 1989 (S/20945/Rev.1) were vetoed by the United States. On 20 May 1990 an Israeli gunman killed 7 Palestinian workers and wounded 11 others at Oyoun Qarra (Rishon LeZion); another 17 Palestinians were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in the subsequent demonstrations (note 17/). Debates were held in Geneva on 25-26 May and in New York on 31 May 1990; Arafat addressed the Council on 25 May calling for international protection; a draft (S/21236) to establish a three-member commission was vetoed by the United States on 31 May 1990 (note 18/). A presidential statement of 19 June 1990 deplored the wounding of Palestinian women and children when an Israeli officer threw a tear gas grenade into an UNRWA clinic near Shati camp on 12 June 1990, and expressed dismay that the officer’s penalty had been commuted (note 19/). A personal representative of the Secretary-General visited from 22 June to 1 July 1990; the principal Palestinian concern conveyed was their profound feeling of vulnerability from the lack of protection (note 20/). Resolution 681 (1990), adopted 20 December 1990, entrusted ongoing responsibilities to the Secretary-General to monitor and observe the situation of Palestinian civilians for the first time. Presidential statements S/22406 (4 January 1991) and S/22408 (27 March 1991, deploring curfews and the expulsion of four Palestinians) and resolution 694 (1991) followed; in January 1992 resolution 726 addressed deportations, and an April 1992 presidential statement drafted by Palestine (S/23783) urged compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and requested the Secretary-General’s good offices under resolution 681 (note 21/). The Secretary-General’s report of 25 January 1993 (S/25149, para. 17) stated his intention to initiate discussions on a United Nations monitoring mechanism, a need which “must be met regardless of progress in the peace talks”. The Assembly first addressed the circumstances on 3 November 1988 in resolution 43/21, and repeatedly requested Council protection measures (resolutions 43/233, 44/2, 45/69, 46/76, 47/64 E; note 23/); resolution 44/2 expressed profound shock at the ransacking of houses in Beit Sahour. Resolution 45/69 expressed profound shock at the violence of 8 October 1990 at Al-Haram Al-Sharif. Guido de Marco, President of the General Assembly, visited the refugees from 2 to 7 January 1991, the first such visit (note 24/). Resolution 47/64 D, para. 6, proposed “to place the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, under the supervision of the United Nations for a transitional period or, alternatively, to provide international protection for the Palestinian people there, as part of the peace process”, a proposal reiterated through 1994. After the Hebron massacre, resolution 904 (1994) called for a temporary international or foreign presence, later established as the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, whose contribution the Assembly appreciated in resolutions through December 2000. Resolution 47/64 E (1992) condemned Israel’s policies, demanded compliance with the Geneva Convention, and requested the Council to consider protection measures.

• Map: Jerusalem Occupied and Expanded by Israel in June 1967 (PDF p.20 / printed p.16): A full-page map read in the original, since the text copy gives only the printed page number. It shows West and East Jerusalem and the West Bank around Bethlehem, with the hatched area of Jerusalem occupied and expanded by Israel in June 1967, the expanded municipal boundary of 28 June 1967, the pre-June 1967 East Jerusalem municipal boundary, and the 1949 Armistice demarcation line; footer Map No. 3546 Rev. 4, United Nations, July 2006, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Cartographic Section, with the standard disclaimer that the designations employed do not imply any opinion concerning legal status or delimitation.

• Section II.B. Outbreak of violence in Jerusalem and related Security Council action (PDF p.19, 21-22 / printed p.15, 17-18): Resolution 672 (1990), adopted unanimously on 12 October 1990, expressed alarm at the violence of 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places in East Jerusalem (note 25/), resulting in over 20 Palestinian deaths and more than 150 injuries among civilians and innocent worshippers; it condemned especially the violence committed by Israeli security forces, called on Israel to abide scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and welcomed the Secretary-General’s mission, requesting a report before the end of October 1990. Resolution 681 (1990) later gave the Secretary-General ongoing responsibilities. Other acute situations addressed included the opening of a tunnel under the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1996, the settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim in 1997, and the events of 2000 leading to the second intifada. On 14 October 1990 the Israeli Cabinet rejected resolution 672 and declared it would not receive the Secretary-General’s delegation; on 24 October resolution 673 (1990) unanimously deplored the refusal and insisted on compliance with resolution 672. The Secretary-General’s report of 31 October 1990 (S/21919 and Corr.1 and Adds. 1-3) enclosed reports by B’Tselem and Al-Haq and a summary of Israel’s Commission of Investigation report; a separate document transmitted the Higher Islamic Council’s findings (A/45/703-S/21926). Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar noted that press coverage indicated some 17 to 21 Palestinians were killed and more than 150 wounded, with more than 20 Israeli civilians and policemen wounded; observers including ICRC personnel stated that live ammunition was used against Palestinian civilians. On 9 November 1990 the Council watched a bystander’s videotape submitted by Palestine as evidence that the shooting at the Al-Aqsa Mosque had been unprovoked. The report recalled resolution 605 (1987), noted that every Council resolution and statement since January 1988 had reaffirmed the Convention’s applicability, quoted article 1 — “The High Contracting Parties [to] undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances” — and added that Israel’s non-acceptance of de jure applicability was neither accepted by ICRC nor endorsed by the other High Contracting Parties. Its conclusion is quoted: “The issue before us today is what practical steps can, in fact, be taken by the international community to ensure the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians living under Israeli occupation.” Resolution 681 (1990), adopted unanimously on 20 December 1990, is quoted in part, including para. 4 urging Israel “to accept de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967”, para. 6 requesting the Secretary-General, in co-operation with ICRC, to develop the idea of convening a meeting of the High Contracting Parties, and para. 7 requesting him “to monitor and observe the situation regarding Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation” and keep the Council regularly informed (note 26/).

• Section II.C. Deportations of Palestinian civilians (PDF p.22-24 / printed p.18-20): From 1988 to 1993 United Nations bodies addressed with urgency Israel’s deportation policy, in violation of international law and with direct onerous effects on peace efforts including the Washington bilateral negotiations in December 1992 (note 27/); the policy continued after that period in a much attenuated form. Resolutions 607 (1988) and 608 (1988) and the presidential statement of 26 August 1988 (S/20156), on the expulsion of four Palestinian civilians to Lebanon on 17 August 1988 and the declared decision to expel 40 more, are recorded. A seven-member draft of 9 June 1989 (S/20677) was vetoed by the United States. Resolutions 636 (1989) and 641 (1989) again called on Israel to desist and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported; resolution 681 (1990) deplored the resumption of deportations; a statement of 27 March 1991 (S/22408) deplored the decision of 24 March 1991 to expel four Palestinians, and resolution 694 (1991) deplored the deportation of four Palestinians on 18 May 1991. Since the beginning of the intifada, Israel had deported at least 66 Palestinians, not including the 12 men mentioned above, in violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as documented in the Acting Chairman’s letter of 6 January 1992 (A/46/837-S/23374). Resolution 726 (1992) unanimously strongly condemned the decision to resume deportations, the first such condemnation in the context of the Madrid peace process (marker “21/” as printed, second use). On 17 December 1992 Israel deported 415 Palestinian civilians suspected of involvement with Hamas and Islamic Jihad (note 28/), which had claimed responsibility for causing the death of nearly a dozen Israeli soldiers and policemen in the preceding weeks (note 29/); most were deported from the Gaza Strip to southern Lebanon, where Lebanon refused entry and a tent camp was established (A/48/278); this was the largest deportation since the 1967 war (note 29/, second use as printed). Resolution 799 (1992), adopted the next day, strongly condemned the action, demanded the safe and immediate return of the deportees, and requested the Secretary-General “to consider dispatching a representative to the area to follow up with the Government of Israel”. The Secretary-General’s report of 25 January 1993 (S/25149) noted Israel’s continued refusal and is quoted that the refusal “challenges the authority of the Security Council” and that he would be failing in his duty if he did not recommend that the Council take whatever measures are required to ensure its unanimous decision is respected. The Assembly condemned deportations in resolutions 44/2, 45/69, 46/76 and 47/64 E, and in resolution 45/130 called on Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians and to release immediately all Palestinian detainees; its Special Committee resolutions (e.g. 44/48 A, 48/41 C) demanded the return of all Palestinians deported since 1967. The Committee’s statement of 21 January 1993 (A/47/874-S/25136) strongly condemned the mass deportation of 17 December 1992 as a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention; its Bureau met the President of the Security Council on 24 March 1993 over the lack of action and delays in the February 1993 United States-Israel gradual repatriation agreement (note 30/: 100 of the 415 immediately repatriated and the remainder by the end of the year; the final 197 returned on 15 December 1993, while 18 activists chose to remain in Lebanon). According to a list compiled by PLO, in 1993 there were around 1,800 Palestinians who had been deported by Israel since 1967 (A/49/67, para. 199).

• Section II.D. Massacre of Palestinian worshippers in Hebron (PDF p.24-25 / printed p.20-21): On 25 February 1994, an armed Israeli settler killed 29 Palestinian worshippers at the Ibrahimi Mosque (Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi) in Hebron (Al-Khalil); the international community condemned the massacre in the strongest terms (A/49/35, para. 23). The Committee Chairman’s statement of 2 March 1994 reminded the international community that Israel bore full responsibility for the protection of Palestinians under the Fourth Geneva Convention, supported the Palestinian request for an international presence, and urged measures to disarm the settlers. Resolution 904 (1994), adopted on 18 March 1994 in its entirety without a vote, strongly condemned the massacre and its aftermath, called on Israel to take measures including confiscation of arms to prevent settler violence, and called for measures to guarantee the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians, including a temporary international or foreign presence as provided for in the Declaration of Principles. The Memorandum of Understanding of 2 May 1994, signed at Copenhagen by Denmark, Italy and Norway under the Israel-PLO security agreement of 31 March 1994, established the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, set up officially on 8 May 1994 to assist in promoting stability and restoring normal life in Hebron; it withdrew on 8 August 1994 when its three-month mandate was not extended, and resumed only on 12 May 1996. The situation in Hebron remained particularly tense and volatile, with Palestinian civilians repeatedly subjected to settler violence, intimidation and harassment (A/50/35, para. 23).

• Section II.E. Extrajudicial killings (PDF p.25-26 / printed p.21-22): Israel’s practice of extrajudicial killings was brought to the attention of the international community numerous times, principally during the two uprisings. Undercover units continued after the Declaration of Principles in 1993, if generally in a less virulent form (A/49/511, para. 713; A/50/463, para. 763). The Assembly condemned the use of undercover units as death squads (resolution 47/70 A); Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/2 expressed deep concern at the Special Rapporteur’s report (E/CN.4/1991/36) on summary or arbitrary executions. The Permanent Observer of Palestine’s letter of 13 July 1993 (A/48/263-S/26078) is quoted citing Amnesty International’s 1993 annual report: “at least 120 Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli forces, often in circumstances suggesting extrajudicial executions or other unjustifiable killings”, with the letter noting that Al-Haq and Palestine Human Rights Campaign (PHRC) had arrived at figures as high as 160 killings, many of the victims 16 years of age or younger. The Committee reiterated in 1993 its call to end the shooting of unarmed demonstrators and undercover activities (A/48/35, para. 6). The practice continued in the mid-1990s (note 31/). In the second intifada, Israel Radio reported towards the end of December 2000 that the army had adopted a new tactic of tracking down and killing Palestinian militants; quoting a senior officer, the broadcast appeared to confirm what Palestinian leaders called a “policy of assassination”, as a result of which at least 19 activists reportedly had been killed by that date (note 32/). The Permanent Observer’s letter of 10 January 2001 (A/ES-10/55-S/2001/33) is quoted in part: “Israel, the occupying Power, clearly pursues a policy of assassination of identified Palestinian civilians” and is “engaged, inter alia, in the wilful killing of civilians, in grave violation of international law and international humanitarian law”.

• Section II.F. Arbitrary detention and imprisonment (PDF p.26 / printed p.22): From 1989 to 1992 the Assembly deplored the arbitrary detention or imprisonment by Israel of thousands of Palestinians and called for their release (e.g. resolution 44/48 D); it repeatedly called on Israel to accelerate the release of all remaining Palestinians arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, in compliance with existing peace agreements (resolutions 48/41 C, 55/133). In 1994 and 1995 the Committee expressed concern that Israel continued to hold thousands of Palestinian prisoners inside Israel, in violation of international law; releases under the Gaza-Jericho Agreement were partial and conditional; the Committee was particularly alarmed by reports of systematic ill-treatment and torture by Israeli interrogators (A/49/35, para. 24; A/50/35, para. 25). In 1996 the Committee noted that some 3,100 Palestinians remained in Israeli prisons, with relatives and ICRC experiencing serious difficulties in visiting them owing to prolonged closure; detaining prisoners in the territory of the occupying Power was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (A/51/35, para. 25). The Committee welcomed the release of 30 Palestinian women prisoners in February 1997 and 350 prisoners in October 1999 under the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. Israel, however, continued to hold hundreds Palestinian prisoners (as printed), including children, under Administrative Detention; the Committee was especially alarmed by reports of detention without charge or trial, torture, overcrowded conditions, solitary confinement, inadequate medical care resulting in some instances in the death of prisoners, deprivation of facilities such as a place to practice religion or to study, restricted access to legal counsel, lack of privacy during legal consultations, and restrictions on family visits (A/52/35, paras. 4 and 23; A/53/35, paras. 16 and 21; A/55/35, para. 22). In 1999 the Committee noted with satisfaction the September 1999 decision of the High Court of Justice of Israel stipulating that the General Security Service was not authorized to employ certain interrogation methods involving physical pressure against detainees (A/54/35, para. 25).

• Section II.G. Closures and curfews (PDF p.27 / printed p.23): Since 1993, United Nations bodies addressed with concern the use of collective punishment comprising external closures, and internal closures through encirclement or blockade of Palestinian towns and villages, checkpoints and curfews, serving no apparent security purpose; closures at times fragmented the Territory into more than 60 enclaves (S/1996/235; resolutions 48/41 C, 55/133) (note 33/). Israel’s closure policy, widely regarded as violating the Fourth Geneva Convention, became institutionalized: it intensified in January 1991, during the Gulf War, when Israel cancelled general exit permits, and became established as a policy on 30 March 1993, following attacks by Palestinians against civilians in Israel and settlers in the Territory (note 34/, Shlaim: Rabin responded with a “massive retaliation”, including closure of the “Green Line” to Palestinian workers). It was furthered by the fragmentation of the areas under Palestinian Authority control under the Oslo agreements (note 35/, Amnesty International, 8 December 1999: 227 parcels under Palestinian control surrounded by areas under Israeli control). Israel maintained, including before the Security Council, that its closure policy was not collective punishment but a preventive measure to enhance security (S/PV.3652). Reports recorded the detrimental impact on Palestinian workers and nearly 120,000 families (note 36/); Israel’s blockade, when fully in place, cost the Territory an estimated $7-11 million in lost GDP per day. Border closure resulted in an average loss of about 20 per cent of Palestinians’ working days in Israel for 1993 to 2000, with peaks in 1995, 1996 and the last quarter of 2000, as well as significant losses in external trade and foreign investment (note 37/). The Security Council’s urgent meeting of 15 April 1996 on closure policies concluded its general debate the same day without deciding on any specific measures (S/PV.3652). President Arafat’s letter of 29 March 1996 (A/50/916-S/1996/233) is quoted: “We consider such blockade and closure as tantamount to the declaration of a state of war against the Palestinian people” and as “the worst and most unjust form of collective punishment”.

• Section II.G, continued (PDF p.28-29 / printed p.24-25): The Committee spearheaded attention to closures: its Chairman’s letter of 28 May 1993 (A/47/959-S/25862) quoted the Palestine Human Rights Information Centre that the closure since 30 March 1993 had been “the most damaging and disruptive policy of the occupying Power on the daily lives of the Palestinian people under occupation”, and Middle East Watch on the loss of income for some 100,000 Palestinians employed in Israel and East Jerusalem. An UNSCO report put the Palestinian economy’s loss at $6billionfrom1992to1996,mostlyowingtoclosures,witha36percentdropinpercapitaGNP,from$2,700 in 1992 to $1,700in1996(A/52/35,paras.26-27);theclosureof25February1996wasreportedthestrictesteversince1967.In1998closuresstillaffected5.2percentofworkingdays.InSeptember2000Israelrevertedtoanintensifiedcomprehensiveclosure;theWorldBankestimatedthetotallossingrossnationalincomeforthefirst15monthsoftheintifadaat$2.4 billion (note 38/), and UNSCO reported the labour/trade border closed 93 of 123 days (75.6 per cent) from 1 October 2000 to 31 January 2001, with internal closures in place 100 per cent of the time in the West Bank and 89 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

• Section II.H. Settlement activities, including at Jabal Abu Ghneim (PDF p.29, 31-35 / printed p.25, 27-31): Israel accelerated illegal settlement activities, bypass roads and land expropriation through the 1990s, doubling the settler population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and increasing it by one third in expanded East Jerusalem; by the end of 2000 it had exceeded 200,000, with an additional 200,000 in Occupied East Jerusalem (notes 40/-41/). The Council considered settlements in March-May 1990 (six meetings, no action) and on 28 February 1995 (no measures); a draft on East Jerusalem land confiscation (S/1995/394) was vetoed by the United States on 17 May 1995. The opening of a tunnel entrance near Al-Haram Al-Sharif on 26 September 1996 triggered unrest in which 40 Palestinians and 11 Israelis were killed; resolution 1073 (28 September 1996, 14-0-1) called for cessation and reversal of the aggravating acts and for “the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured”. Israel’s February 1997 decision to build the “Har Homa” settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim led to two United States vetoes (7 March 1997, draft S/1997/199, 14-1; 21 March 1997, draft S/1997/241, 13 in favour, 1 abstention), Assembly resolution 51/223 (13 March 1997, 130-2-2), and the Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly: resolutions ES-10/2 (25 April 1997, 134-3-11), ES-10/3 (15 July 1997, 131-3-14), ES-10/4 (13 November 1997, 139-3-13), ES-10/5 (17 March 1998, 120-3-5) and ES-10/6 (9 February 1999, 115-2-5), recommending a conference of the High Contracting Parties, which was held at Geneva on 15 July 1999 — the first of its kind — attended by 103 countries, reaffirming the Fourth Geneva Convention’s applicability to the Occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem (Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva, 15 July 1999)). The Council’s presidential statement of 13 July 1998 (S/PRST/1998/21) called Israel’s decision to broaden Jerusalem’s jurisdiction and planning boundaries “a serious and damaging development”. After the Conference Israel allowed 27 of 31 settler “outposts” placed since the Wye River Memorandum to remain; the Committee was alarmed by increased settler activity since the Camp David summit, including settlers with IDF-issued weapons and fortification works near Hebron and Nablus (A/55/35, paras. 19-20).

• Map: “Greater” Jerusalem Area (PDF p.30 / printed p.26): A full-page map read in the original, since the text copy gives only the printed page number (Map No. 3996, United Nations, June 1997, Department of Public Information, Cartographic Section). It shows the area from Ram Allah to Bethlehem, the hatched area of Jerusalem occupied and expanded by Israel in June 1967, the expanded municipal boundary of 28 June 1967, the pre-June 1967 East Jerusalem municipal boundary, the 1949 Armistice line, an approximate boundary of a 100 square mile area, and Israeli settlements marked by triangles, including Jabal Abu-Ghneim south of East Talpiot.

• Section II.I. Human rights situation (PDF p.36-39 / printed p.32-35): The situation seriously deteriorated under increasingly repressive measures; the United States Department of State’s Country reports on human rights practices – 2000 concluded Israel’s overall record in the occupied territories was poor. United Nations reports continued to reflect the view that occupation itself was a violation of human rights. Reported violations are listed at length (killing and wounding; ill treatment and torture including of children; deportation and denial of return; detention without trial; collective punishment; demolition and sealing of houses; land confiscation and bypass roads — note 52/: some 340 km of bypass roads in the West Bank, covering with buffer zones 51.5 km2). The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories concluded repeatedly that Israel was violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Conventions and relevant resolutions, and from 1998 to 2000 that Israel had instituted a comprehensive system of laws, regulations and administrative measures affecting all aspects of Palestinian life; Israel refused it access to any part of the Territory. A Focus records the five human rights instruments ratified by Israel that entered into force on 2 November 1991 and 3 January 1992, and the Committee against Torture’s conclusion that certain interrogation methods amounted to torture. Resolution 55/133 called for a temporary international or foreign presence. The Commission on Human Rights considered during the first intifada that many violations were “war crimes under international law” (resolution 1989/2 A); its resolution 2000/6 condemned the listed practices and singled out torture in interrogation. Its Special Rapporteur (mandated 19 February 1993; first appointed 13 September 1993) reported after a mission of 11-15 October 2000 a dramatic upsurge of violations since late September 2000 and recommended an ombudsman-type mechanism, an observer and/or guarantor body, and a speedy and objective inquiry. The Commission’s fifth special session adopted resolution S-5/1 (19 October 2000, 19-16-17), establishing a human rights inquiry commission whose three members, appointed 19 December 2000, visited on 10-18 February 2001 and called for an “adequate and effective” international presence, finding Israeli forces had used “excessive and disproportionate force” (E/CN.4/2001/121). High Commissioner Mary Robinson, visiting 8-16 November 2000, stated that “every effort should be made to explore the feasibility of establishing an international monitoring presence”.

• Section II.J. Second intifada (PDF p.39-42 / printed p.35-38): Confrontations following the visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif by opposition leader Arik Sharon, accompanied by Likud Knesset members and hundreds of soldiers and police, led to bloodshed at the end of September 2000; violence emerged in towns in Israel for the first time since the late 1940s. According to Palestinian sources, by the end of 2000 over 320 Palestinians had lost their lives (A/ES-10/54-S/2001/17). Special Coordinator Terje Rød-Larsen estimated (13 February 2001) a total economic loss of $1,150million,or20percentofprojectedGDPfor2000,withover11,000injuredPalestinianstocarefor;Israe{l}^{\prime }shalttotransferringParisProtocolrevenues—almosttwothirdsofthe[[palestinian-authority|PalestinianAuthority]{]}^{\prime }srevenue—exacerbatedthedecline(note59/:about$500 million withheld by the end of 2002). UNDP’s Programme of Assistance mobilized $6.6 million in October-December 2000 for emergency health support and job creation (Focus). The Committee Chairman’s letter of 2 October 2000 (A/55/440-S/2000/936) held the events “a direct result of the policies and practices of the Israeli occupation”. The Council adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1322 on 7 October 2000 (14-0-1); on 7 November the Secretary-General stated that consent of both parties was required for a protection force and Israel would not cooperate (SG/SM/7617), and welcomed President Clinton’s appointment of the fact-finding committee to be chaired by former Senator George J. Mitchell; on 18 December 2000 draft S/2000/1171, to dispatch a United Nations observer force, failed with 8 votes in favour and 7 abstentions. The Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/7 on 20 October 2000; resolution 55/130 (8 December 2000) condemned the excessive use of force which had resulted in more than 160 Palestinian deaths in the preceding weeks; resolution 55/55 called for reversing all measures taken since 28 September 2000.

• Section III. The peace process of the 1990s, introduction (PDF p.42-44 / printed p.38-40): Madrid (October 1991) and the Oslo Accords (September 1993) were major turning points; all parties agreed to negotiate on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338, premised on “land for peace” (note 63/). The efforts followed the Palestine National Council’s 1988 Algiers meeting, which accepted resolution 242, offering “the historic compromise of the two-State solution on the basis of the pre-1967 borders”. Israel-Jordan talks led to the October 1994 peace treaty; Israel-Lebanon and Israel-Syria talks were suspended in February 1994 and January 2000; in May 2000 Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon (resolution 425 (1978)). Important outcomes: mutual recognition; redeployment, gradually reversed towards the end of 2000; the Palestinian Authority; and return of the Palestinian leadership. Under the agreements the Territory was divided into areas “A”, “B” and “C”; areas under some degree of Palestinian control were estimated to cover eventually 40 per cent of the West Bank, or some 42 per cent of the Territory occupied in June 1967, excluding East Jerusalem, none of which was ever placed under Palestinian control. The 1996 elections, institution-building and symbols of emerging statehood (passport, postage stamp, Gaza International Airport in 1998, national air carrier, Gaza Seaport works, Internet domain, “safe passage” route) are recorded, alongside the intensification and institutionalization of closures.

• Section III.A. Madrid Peace Conference (PDF p.44-45 / printed p.40-41): Held in Madrid from 30 October to 1 November 1991, sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union, aiming “a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement through direct negotiations on two tracks, between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians” (invitation letter, 19 October 1991, note 72/). The invitation set the phased structure — interim self-government agreement within one year, a five-year interim period, permanent status negotiations from the third year, on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338 — later called the “terms of reference” or “Madrid principles”. United States letters of assurance opposed annexation of East Jerusalem and settlement activity, and opposed continuation of Israeli rule or annexation, while not supporting an independent Palestinian State (note 73/). The conference was not held under United Nations auspices; Ambassador Brunner attended as observer. The Assembly welcomed it from resolution 46/75 as “a significant step towards the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region”, while the Committee reiterated through mid-November 1993 its support for a United Nations conference with the PLO on an equal footing (note 75/). A cumbersome arrangement restricting full Palestinian participation, in particular the PLO and East Jerusalem Palestinians, beset the process from the start.

• Section III.A.1. Bilateral track (PDF p.45-47 / printed p.41-43): Delegations of 14 members; the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation had 14 representatives each, plus an unofficial Palestinian advisory team coordinating with the PLO (note 76/). Eleven rounds ran from 3 November 1991: the first five under Prime Minister Shamir were caught up in procedural matters, “sloganeering” and mutual recrimination (notes 80/-81/, Shlaim); under Rabin the sixth round (24 August-14 September 1992) began to see “real dialogue”; the eighth round “ended abruptly” on 16 December 1992 when Rabin announced the deportation of 416 Hamas activists to Lebanon (as printed; section II.C gives 415); the ninth round (27 April-13 May 1993) saw Israel accept Faisal Husseini as Palestinian delegation leader and affirm resolution 242 as the basis of final status talks; the tenth round ended in failure; the eleventh opened on 31 August 1993 after the Oslo talks had been made public. Resolution 47/63 A expressed satisfaction with Madrid but regretted the desired substantial results had not been achieved.

• Section III.A.2. Multilateral track (PDF p.47-49 / printed p.43-45): Commenced at Moscow on 28-29 January 1992; working groups on arms control and regional security, water, refugees, environment and economic development were set up on 4 March 1992 with named “gavel holders” (water resources, United States; environment, Japan; regional economic development, European Union; refugees, Canada). Syria and Lebanon boycotted pending bilateral progress; the Palestinians were excluded from the arms control group; some 50 countries participated. In October the United Nations was invited as a “full extraregional participant” and Chinmaya Gharekhan was appointed the Secretary-General’s Special Representative (20 November). A Focus quotes Water resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (1992) on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, including resolutions 3005 (XXVII), 3336 (XXIX), 32/161, 37/135 and 38/144. Joint expert projects, the Bahrain Environmental Code of Conduct, a desalinization research centre in Oman and training centres in Jordan and Bahrain are recorded. The track was formally suspended in November 1996, resumed at Moscow on 31 January-1 February 2000, and suspended again by the Arab States in October 2000 (A/55/513-S/2000/1010). The Middle East and North Africa Economic Summits (Casablanca 1994, Amman 1995, Cairo 1996, Doha 1997) are recorded, including the four regional organizations approved at Casablanca.

• Section III.B. Declaration of Principles (Oslo agreement) (PDF p.49-52 / printed p.45-48, in progress): With the Madrid bilateral talks stalled, private talks between Israelis and the PLO in Norway and elsewhere (note 98/: 14 secret sessions in Oslo alone in 1993, Shlaim) culminated in the signing in Washington, D.C. on 13 September 1993 of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. The “Oslo channel” was facilitated in 1992 by Terje Rød-Larsen — described as “twice the future United Nations envoy to the region” — with Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), described as a future Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister (2003-2006), and Yair Hirschfeld, under Foreign Minister Johan Jørgen Holst; with an indirect contact between Israel and the PLO established at the highest level, the two parties agreed on the “Gaza and Jericho first” approach to troop redeployment and to initiate between them official negotiations. Letters of mutual recognition were exchanged on 10 September 1993. The Declaration (17 articles, 4 annexes, agreed minutes; A/48/486-S/26560) was signed at the White House by Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas before Rabin, Arafat and President Clinton; article I, quoted in full, gives a transitional period not exceeding five years leading to a permanent settlement based on resolutions 242 and 338 (the section’s opening passage states the interim arrangements were “for a period not to exceed two years”, as printed). Its articles, annexes, permanent status issues (Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, and — added by the 1995 Interim Agreement — water resources), the elections protocol giving Jerusalem Palestinians the right to participate, the transfer of authority in education, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism, the “strong” police force, the Joint Liaison Committee, and the supplementary Peres and Arafat letters to Holst are all set out; the part ends mid-section at PDF p.52.

Key passages

• “land for peace” — the basis, with resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), on which the Madrid conference sought a comprehensive negotiated settlement (Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: Part V (1989-2000), PDF p.5 / printed p.1).
• “the designation ‘Palestine’ should be used in place of the designation ‘Palestine Liberation Organization’ in the United Nations system” — resolution 43/177, as recalled in note 6/ (PDF p.11 / printed p.7).
• “Palestine shall not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates.” — the restriction in the Secretary-General’s note on resolution 52/250 (PDF p.12 / printed p.8).
• “an international conference, at an appropriate time, properly structured, should facilitate efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement” — Security Council President’s statement of 20 December 1990 (S/22027) (PDF p.14 / printed p.10).
• “to place the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, under the supervision of the United Nations for a transitional period or, alternatively, to provide international protection for the Palestinian people there, as part of the peace process” — resolution 47/64 D, para. 6 (PDF p.19 / printed p.15).
• “The issue before us today is what practical steps can, in fact, be taken by the international community to ensure the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians living under Israeli occupation.” — Secretary-General’s report of 31 October 1990 (PDF p.21 / printed p.17).
• “to accept de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967” — resolution 681 (1990), para. 4, as quoted (PDF p.22 / printed p.18).
• “to consider dispatching a representative to the area to follow up with the Government of Israel” — resolution 799 (1992), as quoted (PDF p.23 / printed p.19).
• “at least 120 Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli forces, often in circumstances suggesting extrajudicial executions or other unjustifiable killings” — Amnesty International’s 1993 annual report, as quoted in the Permanent Observer of Palestine’s letter of 13 July 1993 (PDF p.25 / printed p.21).
• “We consider such blockade and closure as tantamount to the declaration of a state of war against the Palestinian people” — President Arafat’s letter of 29 March 1996 (PDF p.27 / printed p.23).
• “the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured” — resolution 1073 (1996) (PDF p.31 / printed p.27).
• “Mindful of the urgent and widespread calls for international protection made to her during her visit to the occupied territories, the High Commissioner believes that every effort should be made to explore the feasibility of establishing an international monitoring presence.” — High Commissioner Mary Robinson’s report of 29 November 2000 (PDF p.39 / printed p.35).
• “Condemns the violence that took place on 28 September 2000 and the following days at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places in Jerusalem as well as other areas in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, resulting in the deaths of over 100 people, the vast majority of whom were Palestinian civilians” — resolution ES-10/7, para. 1 (PDF p.41 / printed p.37).
• “a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement through direct negotiations on two tracks, between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians” — letter of invitation to the Madrid Peace Conference, 19 October 1991 (PDF p.44 / printed p.40).
• “The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the “Council”), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)” — Declaration of Principles, article I, as quoted (PDF p.50 / printed p.46).
• “I wish to confirm that the Palestinian institutions of East Jerusalem and the interests and well-being of the Palestinians of East Jerusalem are of great importance and will be preserved.” — Foreign Minister Peres’s letter to Foreign Minister Holst (PDF p.52 / printed p.48).

Evidence the work relies on

• General Assembly, Security Council and Economic and Social Council resolutions and presidential statements cited throughout, with document symbols (e.g. resolutions 43/176, 44/42, 48/158, 49/149, 52/250, 55/87; Council resolutions 605, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726, 799, 904; statements S/22027, S/22406, S/22408, S/23783).
• Reports and letters of the Secretary-General (A/46/652-S/23225; S/21919 and addenda; S/22472; S/25149) and of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (A/44/35, A/47/35, A/48/35, A/49/35, A/50/35, A/51/35, A/52/35, A/53/35, A/54/35, A/55/35), and reports of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.
• Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall (2000), p. 509-510, for the March 1993 killings and closure and the December 1992 deportations context (notes 14/, 27/, 34/, 36/); Chinmaya Gharekhan, The Horseshoe Table (2006), p. 187-188 (notes 21/, 29/); Bilal al-Hassan on the Tunis talks (note 8/).
• Reports by B’Tselem and Al-Haq and a summary of Israel’s Commission of Investigation report, as addenda to the Secretary-General’s report of 31 October 1990 (S/21919); Amnesty International’s 1993 annual report and its Demolition and dispossession (8 December 1999) (note 35/); Middle East Watch, as cited in Palestine’s letter of 13 July 1993.
• UNSCO reports on closure policy and its economic impact (notes 33/, 37/), UNRWA and ICRC material as cited, the Yearbook of the United Nations 1993 and 1994 (notes 15/, 16/, 22/), and United Nations publications The Question of Palestine and The United Nations and the Question of Palestine.
• For sections II.H-III.B: Council and Assembly records of the tenth emergency special session (A/ES-10/PV.1, 6, 8, 10; resolutions ES-10/2 to ES-10/7) and the Secretary-General’s reports under them (A/ES-10/6-S/1997/494; A/ES-10/16-S/1997/798); the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Report on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, vol. 11, Nos. 2-3 (2001) (notes 40/-41/); the World Bank, Fifteen Months – Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis (18 March 2002) (note 38/); the UNSCO press release of 13 February 2001 (note 58/) and the IMF’s West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reform under Conflict Conditions (2003) (note 59/); the United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2000 (note 51/); Commission on Human Rights documents (E/CN.4/1994/14, E/CN.4/S-5/3, E/CN.4/2001/114, E/CN.4/2001/121); and Shlaim, The Iron Wall, throughout section III (notes 67/, 77/, 79/-89/, 98/, 103/-104/), with Reich, An Historical Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1996) (notes 76/, 78/), Peters on the multilateral talks (note 93/), United Nations, Water resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (1992) and The Status of Jerusalem (1997) (Focus boxes), and Barghouti and Shbeib on Palestinian approval and rejection of the Declaration of Principles (note 100/).

Analysis

In the part read so far, the study is a United Nations institutional history written from the position it states in its Introduction: a negotiated solution based on resolutions 242 and 338, Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian self-determination and statehood, and a just settlement of the refugee problem. Its method in sections I-II is chronological compilation of United Nations action — Assembly and Council resolutions, presidential statements, Committee reports and Secretary-General reports — with casualty, deportation, prisoner and closure figures taken from those reports and from the human-rights organizations it cites. Israeli positions are recorded where United Nations documents record them (rejection of the conference call and of the Secretary-General’s 1990 mission, non-acceptance of the Fourth Geneva Convention’s de jure applicability, and the claim that closure is a preventive security measure, not collective punishment). The study’s own evaluative terms — “excessive use of force”, “collective punishment”, a “policy of assassination” attributed to Palestinian leaders — are its framing, attributed on this page to the study or to the speaker it quotes. Limits in this part: several central figures rest on a single cited report (the first intifada toll on A/48/35, para. 22; the deportee total since 1967 on a PLO list in A/49/67, para. 199), and the 8 October 1990 death toll is given in two forms in different contexts, held under Open questions. In sections II.H-III.B the method remains chronological compilation, now centred on the emergency special session sequence and on Shlaim’s narrative for the Madrid rounds and the Oslo channel; the study’s Madrid account is notably dependent on that single secondary source, and its two figures for the December 1992 deportation (415 in section II.C, 416 in section III.A.1) are held under Open questions rather than reconciled.

People, organizations, places and events

Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestinian Authority, State of Palestine, UNRWA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, B’Tselem, Al-Haq, Yasir Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, First Intifada, Second Intifada, Hebron, Bethlehem, UN General Assembly Resolution 194, UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, UN Security Council Resolution 242, UN Security Council Resolution 681, UN Security Council Resolution 672, UN Security Council Resolution 799, UN Security Council Resolution 904, Temporary International Presence in Hebron, Bethlehem 2000, UN Security Council Resolution 1073, UN Security Council Resolution 1322, Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly, Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva, 15 July 1999), Madrid Conference, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Terje Rød-Larsen, Arik Sharon, Faisal Husseini, Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmed Qureia

Concepts

Self-determination, Fourth Geneva Convention, Administrative Detention, Closure system

How it relates to other sources

This is the fifth part of the series, continuing Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: Part IV (1984-1988) (1984-1988) from 1989. Its account of the First Intifada’s opening months overlaps Part IV’s section IV, and it cites the combined 1917-1988 volume (notes 6/, 12/) for the 1987-1988 intifada and for resolution 43/177. Its first-intifada toll (approximately 1,240 deaths by August 1993, an estimated 130,000 injured, A/48/35) is recorded alongside, not merged with, the tolls given on First Intifada by other sources. Its treatment of the conference call carries forward Parts III-IV: the Geneva Declaration and resolution 38/58 C framework of Parts III-IV becomes, in this part, the peak Assembly support of 1989 and the call’s disappearance after Madrid and Oslo.

Open questions

• Footnote marker 21/ is used twice as printed in section II: first for Gharekhan, The Horseshoe Table, p. 187, at PDF p.18, and again at PDF p.23 in the resolution 726 passage, where the notes printed at the foot of the page are 28/ and 29/. No second note 21/ is printed in this part.
• Footnote marker 29/ is used twice as printed in the same paragraph at PDF p.23, for the claim that Hamas and Islamic Jihad had claimed responsibility for causing the death of nearly a dozen Israeli soldiers and policemen, and for the claim that the 17 December 1992 deportation was the largest deportation since the 1967 war; the single printed note 29/ is Gharekhan, p. 188.
• The 8 October 1990 Al-Haram Al-Sharif death toll is given two ways: section II.B (PDF p.19) gives over 20 Palestinian deaths and more than 150 injuries, while the Secretary-General’s report as summarized at PDF p.21 gives some 17 to 21 Palestinians killed and more than 150 wounded, with more than 20 Israeli civilians and policemen wounded. Both are recorded as given, in their contexts.
• The study’s quotation of the Secretary-General’s 25 January 1993 passage at PDF p.23 opens without quotation marks in the body as printed, following a colon; it is recorded as printed.
• Section II.F at PDF p.26 reads “continued to hold hundreds Palestinian prisoners” as printed, without “of”.
• The maps at PDF p.20 and p.30 are not in the text copy, which gives only the printed page numbers; both maps were read in the original, and spellings of place names on the map renderings that are uncertain are not relied on.
• The sentence “By the mid-1990s, it had become evident that land confiscation and settlement expansion were taking place at a much accelerated pace, in particular in and around occupied East Jerusalem” appears twice in section II.H at PDF p.29, the second instance citing “(ibid.)”; it is recorded twice as printed.
• The Secretary-General assistance report symbol at PDF p.28 is printed “A/54/134-S/1998/85”, while note 37/ in the range read in part 1 printed “A/54/134-E/1999/85” for the same assistance context; both are recorded as printed.
• The Focus at PDF p.37 names the covenant “International Convention on Civil and Political Rights” as printed, where the standard title is “Covenant”; recorded as printed.
• Section II.I at PDF p.38 writes that the peace process arrangements brought “palatable relief” as printed, where “palpable” is the expected word; the Casablanca passage at PDF p.49 prints “palpable improvement”. Both are recorded as printed.
• The eighth-round passage in section III.A.1 at PDF p.46 gives the December 1992 deportation as “416 Hamas activists”, where section II.C (PDF p.23) gave 415 Palestinian civilians deported on 17 December 1992; both figures are recorded as given.
• The footnote for the sixth round’s confidence-building measures is printed “81/” a second time at the foot of PDF p.46, duplicating the Shamir note’s number, while the body marker is 83/; recorded as printed.
• At PDF p.41 the study states the Mitchell fact-finding committee was established “in accordance with the understandings reached at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in September 1999”; note 61/ concerns the Memorandum of 4 September 1999, and the fact-finding committee arose from the October 2000 summit understandings; the passage is recorded as printed.
• Marker 93/ is printed twice more at PDF p.48 — after the multilateral institutions sentence and after the November 1996 suspension sentence — duplicating note 93/ (Peters) at PDF p.47, with no new note 93 printed at the foot of PDF p.48; recorded as printed.
• Section III.B at PDF p.49 states the interim arrangements were “for a period not to exceed two years”, while article I as quoted at PDF p.50 gives the transitional period as “not exceeding five years”; both are recorded as printed.
• Note 97/ at PDF p.49 says President Hafez Al-Assad “would pass away in May”, as printed. Note 110/‘s URL is printed “http://www.nad-plo/permanent”, incomplete as printed. Note 84/ as printed reads “strategic” settlements “buildings”.

Coverage

PDF p.1-52 of 93, read in parts 1-2 of 4; PDF p.53-93 remaining.