Fourteenth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine (New York, 9-10 June 1986) – Report – DPR publication

FOURTEENTH UNITED NATIONS SEMINAR ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE

Theme:  "The Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people"

United Nations Headquarters, New York

9 and 10 June 1986

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. The Fourteenth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine, entitled "The inalienable rights of the Palestinian people", was held at United Nations Headquarters, New York, on 9 and 10 June 1986, in accordance with the terms of General Assembly resolution 40/96 B.  Four meetings were held and six panelists presented papers on a selected aspect of the question of Palestine.

2.   H.E. Mr. Massamba Sarré (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, was Chairman of the Seminar and H.E. Mr. George A. Agius (Malta), Rapporteur of the Committee, was Rapporteur. H.E. Mr. Oscar Oramas-Oliva (Cuba), Vice-Chairman of the Committee, acted as Chairman of the Seminar at the 3rd meeting.

I. OPENING STATEMENTS

3.   The opening session of the Seminar, on 9 June 1986, was addressed by Mr. Carl-August Fleischhauer, Under-Secretary-General, Legal Counsel of the United Nations, on behalf of the Secretary-General. In welcoming the participants, Mr. Fleischhauer stated that the convening of the Seminar was testimony to the will of the international community and its recognition of the urgent need to find a just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine, which lay at the heart of the Middle East conflict. The extent of the involvement in the Middle East conflict by the General Assembly, the Security Council and various other organizations of the United Nations attested to the importance which the international community attached to it.

4.   Despite intensive efforts by the United Nations and a number of individual Governments, the search for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict remained elusive and the situation in the region continued to be unstable. Recent events in the Middle East highlighted the increasing urgency of finding a solution to this most complex problem. Ever-present was a threat of renewed conflagration which could cause further suffering and create additional obstacles to peace. That had a profound influence on the stability of the region and, consequently, posed a threat to international peace and security.

5.   There was a wide measure of agreement in the international community that peace in the Middle East could best be achieved through negotiation involving all parties concerned and leading to a comprehensive settlement involving all aspects of the problem. The General Assembly had, in recent years, called for the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East. Certain Governments had put forward various proposals to promote the negotiating process. Unfortunately, none of the above initiatives had achieved so far the desired results. It was important that, despite the difficulties encountered, the peace efforts continue without let-up in order to overcome the current impasse.

6.   H.E. Mr. Massamba Sarré, welcoming the participants, recalled the importance the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People attached to the question of Palestine and stressed its commitment to finding a solution to the problem. He gave a brief account of the Committee's work and highlighted the Committee's conviction that objective information on the question of Palestine would help to ensure more comprehensive coverage of developments in the region and promote public support in favour of an equitable and peaceful solution. Once all the facts surrounding the question of Palestine were known, the resultant better understanding of the question would help to convince even those who, so far, had been somewhat indifferent to the just cause of the Palestinian people.

7. The Committee was convinced that North American public opinion had to be mobilized, along with that of all the other regions, to make the voice of reason, the voice of peace and respect for people's rights in world affairs, better heard. It had to be mobilized to exert a more significant influence in the formulation of policies calculated to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination and independence, rights that they had been unjustly denied for so long.

8.   The widely attended International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva in 1983, recommended the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations, with the participation on an equal footing of all the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – as the representative of the people directly concerned – together with the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Since its thirty-eighth session, the General Assembly had endorsed the idea of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East. It had also invited the Security Council and the Secretary-General to undertake all preparatory measures to convene the Conference. By resolution 40/96 D, the Assembly had stressed the urgent need for additional constructive efforts by all Governments in order to convene the Conference without further delay and for the achievement of its peaceful objectives. It had also called upon the Governments of Israel and the United States to reconsider their positions towards the attainment of peace in the Middle East through the convening of the Conference.

9.   Strongly supported by the majority of the States Members of the United Nations, the Committee fully endorsed the importance of such a Peace Conference and, as a matter of priority, continued to exert all efforts to promote its early convening. The Committee was convinced that this Seminar would stimulate, in North America and throughout the world, an awareness of the facts relating to the question of Palestine and contribute towards ensuring that the Palestinians would be able to exercise their national inalienable rights on their own soil.

10. Mr. Zehdi L. Terzi, Permanent Observer of the PLO to the United Nations, conveyed a message from H.E. Mr. Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO and Commander-in-Chief of the Forces of the Palestine Revolution. In his message, Chairman Arafat thanked the participants in the Seminar for their continued efforts in defence of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

11. The Palestinian people had great respect for the United Nations which embodied international legitimacy and at the same time undertook all endeavours to establish peace based on justice, as peace and justice were the main foundations for the struggle of the Palestinian people and both, peace and justice, were completely inseparable and indivisible. The United States Administration persisted in its rejection of international legitimacy and in its refusal to abide by resolutions adopted by the United Nations. Such resolutions affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to return to their homes and property, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its independent State on its Palestinian national soil. At the same time, the United States Administration maintained its support to the continuance of Israeli occupation and also its support of Israel's expansionist and racist policies against the Palestinian people and the Arab nation. Israel, supported by the United Sates, insisted on imposing what was called functional division and a bogus civilian administration in an effort to cover up the cause and the people.

12. As the Seminar was being held, the Palestinian people in Lebanon were subjected to a campaign aimed against its integrity as a people through organized attacks on the Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut and South Lebanon. When the Palestinian leadership had departed from Beirut in 1982, agreement provided that the refugee camps and the families of the Palestinian fighters would be protected and adequate guarantees would be secured for their safety, but those commitments had never been honoured. In that regard the Secretary-General of the United Nations was reminded that the members of the United Nations Observer Group were still in Beirut and, consequently, it was their duty to carry out their mission in any way that the Secretary-General found possible. Troops of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon were still in South Lebanon. The international community was requested to prompt the concerned parties to honour their commitments to protect the Palestinian people and to provide adequate means to ensure their safety in the refugee camps or to enable the PLO to provide such protection that would secure the safety of the Palestinian people and would preserve the security, stability and independence of Lebanon, its territorial integrity and the unity of its people.

13. The Seminar decided to send a message to Mr. Arafat, thanking him for his message (see annex I to the present report).

14. The opening session was also addressed by H.E. Mr. Natarajan Krishnan, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, H.E. Mr. Oscar Oramas-Oliva, Acting Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, H.E. Mr. Guennadi I. Oudovenko, Vice-Chairman of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid , Mr. Mamoudou Kane, on behalf of the Organization of African Unity, and Mr. Engin A. Ansay, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

II. PANEL DISCUSSION

15. A panel entitled "The International Peace Conference on the Middle East (United Nations General Assembly resolution 38/58 C), the need for such a Conference, efforts and prospects to promote a successful outcome and benefits thereof" was established and the following participated as panelists:

H.E. Mr. George Agius, Mr. Ramsey Clark, Prof. Rashid Khalidi, Senator Heath MacQuarrie, Mr. Jack O'Dell, Prof. Alexei M. Vasilyev.

16. The expert members of the panel agreed on a summary of the presentations and the discussion on that topic. The Seminar decided to include this summary in the report.

Panel: “The International Peace Conference on the middle East (United Nations General Assembly resolution 38/58 C), the need for such a Conference, efforts and prospects to promote a successful outcome and benefits thereof"

17. The Seminar agreed that the international community needed peace now more than ever so that it could devote itself wholeheartedly to solving the present economic and development problems facing it and to halting the arms race to avoid the danger of another world conflagration which would have catastrophic effects on the human race. To achieve peace it was necessary to extinguish the hotbeds of tension that could reach dangerous proportions and bring mankind to the brink of war. The Middle East was undoubtedly one of the principal hotbeds of international tension today. It was imperative, therefore, that all nations, under the auspices of the United Nations, address the question of peace in the Middle East consistently and continuously and speak out constantly on it until peace was achieved.

18. Although almost 40 years had passed since the United Nations General Assembly had adopted resolution 181 (II), which recommended the creation of two States – an Arab State and a Jewish State – so far it had been implemented only to the extent of the creation of the State of Israel. One of the foremost commitments of the international community was to ensure the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to return, to self-determination and to the creation of its own independent State in Palestine. It was felt that the principles enunciated by the United Nations commanded universal adherence and should be supported accordingly, within the framework of a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

19. The litany of pain and suffering that had been experienced and was still being experienced by the peoples of the Middle East was well known. Generations of Palestinian children and their families remained in refugee camps dispersed throughout the region. The sovereignty of Lebanon had been repeatedly violated by acts of military aggression and the fanning of internal rivalries. The principles of international law had been trampled under foot as armed aggression and military occupation served as the vehicle for a process of illegal occupation and extension of territories and the subjugation of the people living in the West Bank and Gaza. A general climate of lawlessness and vindictiveness had expanded and had been exacerbated by the Israeli bombing of the PLO Headquarters at Tunis and by the United states military actions against Libya. The anti-terrorism rhetoric in its expression by certain political leaders was also contributing to an increased denigration of Arab States, Arab people and especially the Palestinian people.

20. The development of science and technology in the region, Israel's turning into a threshold State (or, quite possibly, a State that had already passed that threshold) in the production of nuclear weapons and the potential for some of its opponents to turn in the future into nuclear Powers as well, the ever-increasing sophistication of technology, the introduction of missiles into the region, Israel's joining the United States "Star Wars" programme – all those factors could have unpredictable consequences.

21. An analysis of the ramifications of the Middle East conflict led to the conclusion that chief among the root causes of tension, violence and conflict in the Middle East with all the concomitant threat of regional and possibly global war was the Palestinian problem. The only way to establish a just and lasting peace in the region was by convening a Peace Conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all parties concerned, particularly the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

22. Defusing the present situation in the Middle East was an international problem requiring the co-operation of the international community. The proposal for an International Peace Conference, when implemented, could serve to address the problem in a constructive way. The right of the Palestinian people to exercise full self-determination, the right of the people of Lebanon to territorial sovereignty with guarantees against preemptive strikes or dismemberment, the right of Israel to exist within internationally recognized boundaries, the general discontinuance of the arms race in the region and international co-operation towards the economic development of the region – those were the issues that must be dealt with. 

23. The settlement of the Middle East conflict required a constructive and unbiased approach, taking into account the interests of all sides; it urgently needed an appropriate mechanism to settle that conflict, and the United Nations General Assembly had already repeatedly called for the creation of such a mechanism, that is, for the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East.

24. In that connection, it was strongly reaffirmed that the question of Palestine was at the core of that conflict, which itself was a multi-faceted problem. Over the years, a broad international consensus had been achieved on the necessity of a comprehensive, just and durable settlement of the problem, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied since 1967, the respect for and the acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of war and, finally, a just settlement of the Palestine problem based on the recognition and the exercise of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including its right to self-determination, to return and to a State of its own in Palestine. That consensus had been defined in the Geneva Declaration adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine in 1983, and had also found reflection in the decisions of many other international organizations.

25. The International Conference on the Question of Palestine had adopted a Declaration and a Programme of Action. The Geneva Declaration listed the major guiding principles which should govern any concerted international action for the purpose of resolving the question of Palestine. Those guidelines included:

(a) The attainment by the Palestinian people of its legitimate inalienable rights, including the right to return, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its own independent State in Palestine; 

(b) The right of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate on an equal footing with other parties in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East;

(c) The need to put an end to Israel's occupation of the Arab territories, in accordance with the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and consequently, the need to secure Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

(d) The need to oppose and reject such Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and any de facto situation created by Israel as were contrary to international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly the establishment of settlements, as those policies and practices constituted major obstacles to the achievement of peace in the Middle East;

(e) The need to reaffirm as null and void all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which had altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and property situated thereon, and in particular the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel;

(f) The right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, the sine qua non of which was the recognition and attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as stated in subparagraph (a) above.

26. The guidelines adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine were important and relevant in order to focus on the central issues while fully acknowledging that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people remained fundamental to any solution. They were based on a recognition of the indispensable role of law in achieving the greatest possible measure of justice and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Law was not only the basis of a just solution, but provided the only practical solution.

27. In order to give effect to those guidelines, the Conference considered that it was essential for an International Peace Conference on the Middle East to be convened, with the aim of negotiating and finalizing a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It was agreed that the International Peace Conference on the Middle East should be convened under the auspices of the United Nations, with the equal participation of all parties directly involved, including the PLO, as well as the United States, the USSR and other States concerned. The United Nations, in addition to its sacred trust and responsibility to the Palestinian people, was eminently suited for providing an umbrella and a forum for negotiation and to facilitate the meeting of all the parties to the conflict.

28. The General Assembly had endorsed the call for the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East in its resolution 38/58 C. The Assembly requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Security Council, urgently to undertake preparatory measures to convene the Conference. The necessary contacts had been made by the Secretary-General; however, because of the negative view of two countries and the hesitancy of others, it had not been possible so far to convene the Conference. The General Assembly, in resolution 40/96 D, reaffirmed again its endorsement of the call for convening the International Peace Conference on the Middle East and called upon the Governments of Israel and the United States to reconsider their positions towards the attainment of peace in the region through the convening of the Conference.

29. It should be noted, however, that currently that sole possible road towards the settlement in the Middle East – through an international conference – was being blocked by Israel and the United States. The view was expressed that if the Middle East policy of the United States was to be in effect the policy of Israel, and if there were a growing acceptance that the interests and goals of the two countries was not merely similar but identical, then there was not much prospect of effective American restraint upon Israeli extremism or intransigence in reference to its Arab neighbours or its subject Palestinian population.

30. If democracy were respected, why would the international community fail to follow the mandate of a United Nations vote in which the representatives of 124 nations voted in favour of calling for the convening of this Peace Conference? How could the international community have hope for the efficacy of the United Nations Organization if, in the face of such overwhelming support, non-participation and non-co-operation of not even a handful could frustrate the will of the vast majority of nations and peoples on Earth?

31. Some nations who had abstained and at least one nation that had voted against the resolution calling for the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East had given as the reason for their position that while any nation or nations principally involved and affected refused to participate, they would not press the matter. Such an attitude would make this Organization an institution where one could come and go as one chose and do or say as one would.

32. In practical terms, it appeared to be maintained that only what are called direct negotiations were feasible. Separate agreements could not lead to a stable peace because they implied the stronger side's diktat over the weaker. The so-called peace process of the recent past, based as it was on bilateral rather than comprehensive efforts, had failed utterly to address the directly related aspects of the regional conflict. Conditions of occupation in the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem had become even harsher, and new areas of South Lebanon had in effect come under occupation.

33. One other important flaw of the bilateral approach of the past few years needed special consideration. That was the fact that since the beginning it had failed to involve a central actor of undoubted importance in the conflict, the Palestinians themselves, and their representatives, the PLO. Of course, there were many pretexts for excluding the Palestinians, involving various arguments of detail. The point there was one of principle: if the objective was actually to resolve the conflict in the region, and if the disposition of historic Palestine were the major issue remaining to be resolved, it was imperative that one of the major concerned parties, the Arab people of Palestine, be involved on a basis of equality with all others. Those who sought to deny the participation of the representative of this people, the PLO, must be suspected of trying to avoid a just resolution of the conflict.

34. For the question of Palestine, a multilateral forum would seem to be well-suited to the resolution of key problems, such as how parties which were not acceptable to one another as partners in direct negotiations could be brought to the table; how a settlement arrived at could be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the parties concerned; how to deal simultaneously with related but distinct questions such as other occupied territories, whether Syrian or Lebanese; as well as the ongoing conflict in Lebanon, particularly in its regional and international aspects; and how to avoid the possible bias of a single-party mediator.

35. An international, and specifically a United Nations, format like the International Peace Conference would seem to be ideal for resolution of those issues, and particularly for the core issue of recognition: notably the issue of the recognition of the Palestinian people as a full party to the dispute, and as having inalienable rights to national self-determination in its own homeland, Palestine. The Conference could provide a diplomatic arena for Palestinian participation, where they could be heard and should be treated with respect.

36. While the choice of an appropriate format did not in and of itself insure success as regards that and the other problems just discussed, it would certainly facilitate it. In view of all those considerations, an international conference under United Nations auspices seemed most appropriate. It was hard to see how those issues could be settled in any other context.

37. The Conference could work out general principles of the settlement, determine the nature of peace, and establish the parties' obligations to end the conflict and international guarantees for the settlement. All that called for collective decisions so that agreement was not reached at the expense of the legitimate interests or rights of any party or parties. That was possible only if all parties concerned participated in the negotiations. Naturally, in some instances there would be a need for bilateral negotiations.

38. During the years it had been proven that lasting peace and security in the region could not be achieved by military means, but had to be attained by peaceful means through a legal and political process. The current situation posed great danger to peace and security in the area and the world at large and required intensified political and diplomatic efforts to initiate a process of negotiations as soon as possible for a comprehensive, just and durable settlement in the Middle East.

39. The Seminar was appraised of the policy of the USSR towards a Middle East settlement, as reiterated at the recent Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which had proposed a comprehensive system of international security, an integral part of which should be a just political settlement of regional conflicts. There was an urgent need in the Middle East to respect unconditionally the sovereign right of every people to choose the paths and forms of its own development; to formulate ideas and measures aimed at building confidence among the States of the region; and to establish effective guarantees against aggression and of the inviolability of frontiers. More than anywhere else, there was an urgent need to work out and adopt effective measures to put an end to international terrorism in all its forms. There was a need to put an end to the promotion of racial, national or religious exclusiveness or discrimination against any people on that basis.

40. Peace in the Middle East could not be achieved by means of power politics, through the imposition upon the parties in the conflict of a will that was alien to them. The solution to the problem had to be political and comprehensive and take into account the interests of all the peoples in the region.

41. The Seminar regarded the fact that the majority of States in the international community as well as several major intergovernmental organizations had expressed their strong support for the holding of the Conference to be a significant factor and testimony to the vital importance of such a Conference. It hoped that all those in support of the Conference, and that was the overwhelming majority of the international community, would unite to overcome the obstacles posed by the refusal of Israel and the United States to agree to participate in such a Conference. It was the refusal of those two States alone that obstructed the progress desired by the international community.

42. Developments in the Middle East in recent years had given special urgency and timeliness to the need for the holding of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations. However, obstacles still remained which prevented the holding of the Conference. Every effort should be made to overcome those obstacles, especially since international peace and security were involved.

43. The time was ripe to move forward in a peace process. Genuine peace was attainable through negotiations provided that all the parties to the problem participated actively and there existed the necessary political will. The proposal for the International Peace Conference provided such an opportunity and was the most viable mechanism to establish the process for ensuring a lasting peace in the Middle East.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

44. The Seminar agreed on the following conclusions and recommendations. 

45. Despite intensive efforts by the United Nations the search for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict remains elusive and the situation in the region continues to be unstable. Recent events in the Middle East highlight the increasing urgency of finding a solution to this most complex problem. Delays only prolong the plight of the Palestinian people and encourage acts of violence. Ever present is a threat of renewed conflagration which could cause further suffering and create additional obstacles to peace. This has a profound influence on the stability of that region and, consequently, poses a threat to international peace and security.

46. The Seminar, concerned over the dangerous situation in the Middle East which has been aggravated by repeated acts of all forms of terrorism, especially State terrorism, is profoundly convinced that the vital interests of the peoples of that region, as well as interests of international security as a whole, urgently dictate the need for the speediest attainment of a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Middle East conflict, of which the question of Palestine is the core, on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions and under its auspices.

47. While strenuous attempts have been made to find a solution, the situation in the region is further complicated by Israel's actions in the occupied territories. The situation relating to the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people continues to deteriorate. Israeli policies of illegally maintaining Jewish settlements and confiscating Arab-owned lands in the occupied Palestinian territories continue. They are accompanied by measures designed to stifle all forms of political, cultural, social and economic expression of the Palestinian people. Actions to strengthen control over most aspects of life, with the objective of obstructing the self-generating development of the occupied territories and to turn them into a dependent entity aiming at its final absorption and annexation, continue. These policies are in direct contravention of United Nations resolutions and international law and lead only to the exacerbation of tension in the area, further hindering attempts to find a peaceful solution.

48. The Seminar affirms that the problem of the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people remains the core of the conflict in the Middle East and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region can be achieved without the full exercise of those rights, including the right to return, to self-determination and to create their own independent State, and without the complete withdrawal of Israel from Arab territories occupied since 1967. It further reaffirms that the Palestine Liberation Organization is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The settlement of this problem remains a continuous responsibility of the United Nations.

49. Those States Members of the United Nations who do not support the attainment by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, especially the United States and Israel, should reconsider their positions towards the solution to the problem. The best way to establish a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is by convening the International Peace Conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 38/58 C.

50. The Conference should be convened without preconditions and its proceedings should be conducted in a constructive spirit. The aim of the Conference should be a comprehensive settlement encompassing all aspects of the Middle East conflict. The participation of the United States and the Soviet Union in the Conference is essential. All States should endeavour to persuade the United States to reconsider its current position towards the convening of the Conference. An appeal should be made to the United States to join other nations in convening the Conference.

51. The Seminar is of the view that there is no other serious avenue to a resolution of the Middle East conflict except within the context of an International Peace Conference as called for by the General Assembly, where the numerous complex and interrelated aspects of this conflict could be addressed. In view of the fact that bilateral approaches resulted only in continuing warfare and occupation, the suspicion must be strong that those opposing the International Peace Conference do so because they place other priorities before the achievement of peace in the Middle East.

52. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People has an important role to play in promoting the idea of convening the Conference. In general, the Seminar recommends the intensification of the political and diplomatic efforts by all concerned for reaching a comprehensive, just and durable settlement of the conflict in the Middle East.

53. Every effort should be made to influence public opinion throughout the world through the use of the media. In that connection, the United Nations should make additional efforts to disseminate factual and up-to-date information on the question of Palestine, as one of the major contributions to the achievement of a just solution to the problem of Palestine on the basis of the attainment by the Palestinian people in Palestine of their inalienable rights. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat have an important role in such dissemination of information. Furthermore, the Department of Public Information of the United Nations should make every effort to ensure that accurate information on the question of Palestine receives the widest possible dissemination.

Annex I 

MESSAGE FROM THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE SEMINAR

TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

The Fourteenth United Nations Seminar on the Question of Palestine, meeting at United Nations Headquarters on 9 and 10 June 1986, wishes to express its appreciation for your kind message conveyed to the Seminar at its opening session. The Seminar affirms its strong support for the just cause of the Palestinian people and its sole legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Seminar also affirms that the problem of the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people remains the core of the conflict in the Middle East and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region can be achieved without the full exercise of those rights, including the right to return, to self-determination and to create their own independent State, and without the complete withdrawal of Israel from Arab territories occupied since 1967. The best way to establish a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is by convening the International Peace Conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 38/58 C.

Annex II 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS

Panelists

H. E. Mr. George Agius

Mr. Ramsey Clark

Prof. Rashid Khalidi

Senator Heath MacQuarrie

Mr. Jack O'Dell

Mr. Alexei M. Vasilyev

Member States

United Nations organs

United Nations Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

H.E. Mr. Oscar Oramas-Oliva (Cuba) 

United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid 

H.E. Mr. Guennadi I. Oudovenko

United Nations specialized agencies 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

United Nations Industrial Development Organization

Intergovernmental organizations

League of Arab States  

Mr. Mohamed Morsi, Attaché

Organization of African Unity

Mr. Mamoudou Kane, Assistant Executive Secretary

Mr. Nganatha Karugu

Organization of the Islamic Conference  

Mr. Engin A. Ansay, Acting Permanent Observer

Mr. N. Tarzi

National liberation movements 

Palestine Liberation Organization

Mr. Zehdi L. Terzi, Permanent Observer

Dr. Riyad Mansour, Deputy Permanent Observer

South West Africa People's Organization

Mr. Pius H. Asheeke, Deputy Permanent Observer

Non-governmental organizations 

CAFIOT

Mr. Jack Taft

Church of Humanism  

Rev. Joseph Ben-David

Ms. Elizabeth Barnsley

Middle East Research and Information Project

Ms. Ruth Benn

Alessandro Olivieri

United Methodist Church

Ms. Kay Buescher

—–