by Francis A. Boyle
(The author served as Legal Adviser to the Palestinian
Delegation to the Middle East peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993.
The viewpoints expressed here are his own.)
When the Oslo Document was originally presented by
the Israeli government to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle
East Peace Negotiations in the Fall of 1992, it was rejected by the
Delegation because it obviously constituted a bantustan. This
document carried out Menachem Begin's disingenuous misinterpretation
of the Camp David Accords--expressly rejected by U.S. President
Jimmy Carter--that all they called for was autonomy for the people
and not for the land too.
Soon thereafter, unbeknownst to the
Delegation and to almost everyone else, the Israeli government
opened up a secret channel of negotiations in Norway. There the
Israeli government re-presented the document that had already been
rejected by the Palestinian Delegation in Washington, D.C. It was
this document, with very minor modifications, that was later signed
at the White House on 13 September 1993.
Before the signing
ceremony, I commented to a high-level official of the Palestine
Liberation Organization: "This document is like a
straight-jacket. It will be very difficult to negotiate your way out
of it." This PLO official agreed with my assessment and
responded: "Yes, you are right. It will depend upon our
Of course I have great respect for
Palestinian negotiators. They have done the best they can
negotiating in good faith with the Israeli government that has been
invariably backed up by the United States. But there has never been
any good faith on the part of the Israeli government either before,
during or after Oslo. Ditto for the United States.
Even if Oslo had
succeeded, it would have resulted in the imposition of a bantustan
upon the Palestinian People. But Oslo has run its course! Therefore,
it is my purpose here today to chart a NEW DIRECTION for the
Palestinian People to consider.
First, we must immediately move for
the de facto suspension of Israel throughout the entirety of the
United Nations System, including the General Assembly and all U.N.
subsidiary organs and bodies. We must do to Israel what the U.N.
General Assembly has done to the genocidal rump Yugoslavia and to
the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa! Here the legal basis
for the de facto suspension of Israel at the U.N. is quite simple:
As a condition for its admission to the United Nations Organization,
Israel formally agreed to accept General Assembly Resolution 181
(II) (1947) (partition/Jerusalem trusteeship) and General Assembly
Resolution 194 (III) (1948) (Palestinian right of return), inter
alia. Nevertheless, the government of Israel has expressly
repudiated both Resolution 181 (II) and Resolution 194 (III).
Therefore, Israel has violated its conditions for admission to U.N.
membership and thus must be suspended on a de facto basis from any
participation throughout the entire United Nations System.
any further negotiations with Israel must be conducted on the basis
of Resolution 181 (II) and its borders; Resolution 194 (III);
subsequent General Assembly resolutions and Security Council
resolutions; the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949; the
1907 Hague Regulations; and other relevant principles of public
Third, we must abandon the fiction and the fraud
that the United States government is an "honest broker."
The United States government has never been an honest broker from
well before the very outset of these negotiations in 1991. Rather,
the United States has invariably sided with Israel against the
Palestinians. We need to establish some type of international
framework to sponsor these negotiations where the Palestinian
negotiators will not be subjected to the continual bullying,
threats, harassment, intimidation and outright lies perpetrated by
the United States government.
Fourth, we must move to have the U.N.
General Assembly impose economic, diplomatic, and travel sanctions
upon Israel pursuant to the terms of the Uniting for Peace
Resolution (1950), whose Emergency Special Session on Palestine is
now in recess.
Fifth, the Provisional Government of the State of
Palestine must sue Israel before the International Court of Justice
in The Hague for inflicting acts of genocide against the Palestinian
People in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention!
steps taken in conjunction with each other should be enough to
enable the Palestinian People to obtain restitution, reparations,
and the return to their homes and lands--INSHALLAH! By contrast, if
the Oslo process is continued, it will inevitably result in the
imposition of a bantustan upon the Palestinian People living in
occupied Palestine, as well as the final dispossession and
disenfranchisement of all Palestinian People living in the diaspora.
Consequently, I call upon all Palestinian People living everywhere
in the world to unite behind this NEW DIRECTION that I have sketched
out here today
Mr. Francis A. Boyle is a Professor
in International Law. He wrote above viewpoints on March 03, 2000
- by the same author: