Association Bylaws Join Board Newsletter Articles FAQ Help Contact





Articles and links to articles on our website are published with the understanding that we do not share all of the authors views, yet we find the material relevant to our cause and useful to readers and for research purposes.

Terms of Use

Articles published on this website are owned by their respective authors and are reproduced with their kind permission. Any reproduction of any of these articles is prohibited without prior consent by their respective author.


Our bylaws and the invitation to join our association may be freely reproduced and disseminated.


The design of the website is the creative property of Pixelindustries (Germany) and The Association for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel owns the untransferable right of use.

The Solution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: One or Two States?

by Sami Aldeeb 1)

November 8, 2003

The Oslo Agreement, The Road Map and the Geneva Agreement 2), to only mention these documents, all try to put back the hands of the clock to zero and to forget the past. It is easy for those that did not lose anything. However, any solution imposed by outsiders that does not take account of the losers, only reinforces their will to foil it. Therefore, we need to start speaking about these losers, as many Jews refusing injustice already do.

I. From the Land of Canaan to the Land of the Jews

The land in conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is called "Canaan" in the Bible. It is the name that God used to designate this land when he spoke to Abraham (mythic or real, carnal or spiritual father of the Jews, Christians and Muslims):

I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding (Genesis 17:8).

Never through history has this land belonged to only one religious group. All groups who have been living there knew persecution and expulsion: Canaanites, Jews, Palestinians, Christians and Muslims.

Based on religious considerations, and invoking their history of persecution, the Jews have attempted over the past century to recover Palestine to turn it into a national homeland. They have been helped in their endeavour by their Western persecutors who wanted themselves to get rid of the Jews and seek forgiveness, and presumably to maintain tension in the region, enabling their intervention as well as the sale of weapons.

Ben-Gurion, one of the founding fathers of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister, said in 1937 that Palestine did not belong to its current inhabitants and that this country will not have to solve the problems of two peoples but of one, the Jews of everywhere 3).

This statement by Ben-Gurion continues in a straight line the programme of the Zionist Movement founded in 1897 by Theodor Herzl, which aimed to transform Palestine into a homeland for the Jews only. Israeli terrorist groups such as Stern and Irgun carried out this idea. They succeeded in chasing out of the country three quarters of the non-Jewish inhabitants 4) who according to the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 had to be considered citizens of the Jewish state 5). Shimon Peres in Le Monde of September 23, 1988 sums up what happened in the past in Palestine unequivocally: "For one hundred years the Zionist movement has been dedicated to realize a Jewish majority in one single country, the land of the Jewish people. The Jewish State means a State in which Jews form a distinct majority".

II. Expulsion and destruction at the time of the creation of Israel

The expulsion of the Palestinians was accompanied by a policy of massive destruction of their localities. Israel Shahak, Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is the first Israeli author to have unveiled the destruction of the Palestinian villages after 1948 and the expulsion of their inhabitants. He writes in this connection:

The truth about Arab settlements, which used to exist in the area of the State of Israel before 1948, is one of the most guarded secrets of Israeli life. No publication, book or pamphlet, gives either their number or their location. This of course, is done on purpose in order that the accepted official myth of "an empty country" can be taught and accepted in the Israeli Schools and told to visitors.

I believe that falsifying facts in this manner is a most grave offence in itself, and also one of the most important causes for prevention of any meaningful peace (not one based on force and oppression). This falsification is especially grave in my opinion, as it is accepted almost universally outside the Middle East, and because the villages were - in almost all cases - destroyed completely, with their houses, garden-walls, and even cemeteries and tomb-stones, so that literally a stone does not remain standing, and visitors are passing and being told that "it was all desert".

I believe, therefore, that the first duty of any honest man in Israel and outside it is to try to learn the truth as much as he can

The list established by Israel Shahak and verified by Christophe Uehlinger, from the University of Fribourg, based on Israeli maps mentioning the destruction 7), comprises 383 Palestinian localities. We give here the number of those destroyed classified by districts:

District of Safed:76
District of Ramleh: 54
District of Haifa: 45
District of Gaza: 45
District of Jerusalem: 37
District of Acre: 25
District of Tiberias: 24
District of Bisan: 22
District of Jaffa: 19
District of Hebron: 15
District of Tulkarem: 10
District of Jenin: 6
District of Nazareth: 4
District of Beersheba: 1

This represents about 81% of all Palestinian localities that existed behind the frontiers before 1967. To these villages should be added a large number of tribes expelled or killed, a list of which is given by Prof. Shahak. In addition, almost the entire non-Jewish population of the cities of Tiberias, Safed, Majdal (Ashkelon), Isdud (Ashdod) and Beersheba, was expelled, as was the large majority of non-Jews from Lydda, Ramleh, Jaffa, Haifa and Acre. Those who stayed were deported into ghettos 8).

The aim of the massive expulsion of non-Jews was to empty the country. After expelling the non-Jews, the State of Israel forged a panoply of legal devices to replace them by Jews called in from abroad, to secure their majority in the country and to deprive the Palestinians of their own lands. Among these laws, it is necessary to mention the Law of Return of 1950, which enables each Jew to immigrate to Israel 9). An amendment of 1970 adds the following: "For the purposes of this law, Jew means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion" 10).

A law of 1952 confers automatically Israeli citizenship to any Jew who had been living in Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel and to any Jew who would come thereafter 11). An amendment of 1971 even allows conferring Israeli citizenship to people without expecting them to move to the country 12). Claude Klein writes in 1977: "Since the adoption of this amendment, it seems that hundreds of people have acquired citizenship by this very special way" 13).

The easiness with which a Jew can acquire the Israeli citizenship contrasts with the difficulty a non-Jew will encounter to acquire this citizenship even if he was born in Palestine. This difficulty is reinforced by the forbidding to return to their own country, imposed to the Palestinian refugees.

On May 11, 1949, the State of Israel was admitted as a member to the United Nations Organization. In the preamble to Resolution 273 (III) concerning Israel's admission, reference is made to Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948, which states that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible". This right of return has been reiterated several times by the United Nations 14) but was always rejected by Israel.

Some refugees have tried to reenter their country by clandestinely crossing the border. Israel however chased them out of the country. As the number of these infiltrators increased, the Israeli army received orders to shoot without warning at any person who attempted to return to their home 15). In 1954, a law was introduced that provided heavy sanctions against the infiltrators, and their reexpulsion. This law was and is only applied against non-Jews who come back to their own country 16).

The destruction of Palestinian villages by Israel is still not finished. There are 122 Palestinian villages, inside 1967 Israeli borders, which are not recognised by Israel. These villages are left without supplies of water, electricity and medical services, by order of the Jewish authorities. They are threatened with demolition and evacuation by Israel in order to replace them by new houses for Jewish immigrants 17). The Palestinian inhabitants of these villages come from destroyed localities from which they have been expelled. They are also requesting the right to return to their lands. Their number is estimated at 250,000 people, according to a statement published November 19, 1999 18).

III. Expulsion and destruction after 1967

The expulsion of Palestinians by Israel has been going on after the 1967 occupation. During the 1967 war, Israeli bombers flying at low altitude above three camps near Jericho made some 70,000 refugees flee to the other side of the river Jordan. After the war (1967), they were not allowed to return.

It is necessary to add to these figures 140,000 Palestinians who left the occupied territories. Reasons of their departure are multiple. Some went to join members of their families who were living on the other side of the Jordan and from whom they feared separation. Others were forced to leave.

One of the numerous measures aiming to rid the country of its non-Jewish inhabitants is the deportation of women without Israeli military identity cards and who are married to Palestinian husbands from the occupied territories.

After the 1967 war, Israel again proceeded to destroy villages of non-Jews, however on a smaller scale than immediately after the creation of the Jewish State.

In the area of Latrun, the inhabitants of Beit-Nuba, Yalu and Emmaus, were ordered to leave their villages before the bulldozers pulled all houses to the ground. Land and agricultural equipment were requisitioned and handed over to the adjoining kibbutzim. On the site of these villages, Israel planted a park called Canada Park for weekend outings, financed by the generosity of the Canadian Jewish community. According to a brochure distributed to visitors, the park had cost 15,000,000 US dollars. As for the inhabitants, they were not even allowed to bury their deads near their ancestors. Some of them went to Jordan and others were put in refugee camps 19). It is necessary to add to these destructions of villages, thousand of houses demolished and thousands of fruit trees uprooted by Israel to push Palestinians to exile. Sharon's wall is part of this vast program of eradication of the Palestinian people by the Jews.

Some Palestinian refugees managed to start a new life, but others are still living in about sixty camps for refugees ruled by the UNRWA, an organization created by the UN to cover the crime that it committed against the Palestinians. These camps are in Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan, in West Bank (20 camps) and in Gaza Strip (8 camps). This means that the refugees are some kilometres away from their lands and houses, forbidden to return there for the only crime of being non-Jews, whereas Israel gives the right to all Jews, including converts, to come and settle on the refugees' lands and houses.

IV. Plans of transfer

Today many people in Israel are calling for the expulsion of all Palestinians from the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.

This project was already discussed in an article written by Josef Weitz and published in the Israeli daily Davar of September 29, 1967. Weitz was Deputy-Chairman of the Board of Deputies of the Jewish National Fund from 1951 to 1973. For him the State of Israel, including the West Bank, the Gaza strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan heights, should remain a Jewish state with a small non-Jewish minority not exceeding 15%. In the article, he reiterates ideas he had written in his diary in 1940:

Among ourselves, it must be clear that there is no place in this country for two people to live together... With the Arabs, we shall not achieve our aim of being independent people in this country. The only solution is Eretz Israel, at least the West part of Eretz Israel, without Arabs... and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain, and the transfer must aim at Iraq, Syria and even Transjordan. For this purpose, money will be found, much money; and only with this transfer could the country absorb millions of our brothers. There is no alternative... One should investigate now in the neighbouring countries in order to determine their capacity to absorb the Arabs of Eretz Israel 20).

Joseph Weitz showed method in his madness. Already in September 1948, he declared the need to continually harass the Palestinian refugees to make them move as far as possible from their former lands 21).

The Israeli General Zeevi, called Gandhi, proposed in a Tel Aviv meeting in February 1988 to solve the demographic problem of the occupied territories by transferring the Palestinian inhabitants to neighbouring Arab countries. He claimed, "There is no other solution that is more humane and just than this one" 22). He reiterated his proposal on Israeli radio on June 28, 1988 23). This General did not say how he intends to proceed in the case of Palestinians refusing to leave their homeland. Neither did he say what crime these Palestinians had committed to be deported from their own country nor what would be done with their lands and possessions. In 2001, a few months before his assassination by a FPLP commando, he compared the Palestinians to "snakes" 24). He was then the Minister of tourism.

The transfer should not be limited to Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but extended to Palestinians who live in Israel (called: Israeli Arabs), according to declarations of the Israeli Minister Avigdor Lieberman on the Israeli radio 25). An article appeared in Haaretz February 18, 2001 is even proposing the castration of Arabs and the payment of an amount to any Arab who would accept to be castrated 26).

The Israeli Party Moledet has made a point of stipulating in its political programme that all Palestinians living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip should be transferred to Arab countries 27).

If such a project would be achieved, it would not necessarily put an end to the Zionist appetite whose final goal would be the realization of the Greater Israel extending from the Euphrates to the Nile, as delimited by the Bible (Genesis 15:18). Certainly, Israel has the military capacity to achieve this ambitious project, especially thanks to the unconditional American help and to fundamentalist Christians. But what would be the price? Israel is already viewed by the majority of Europeans as the biggest threat to world peace, before North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan 28). The expulsion of the Palestinians by Israel from the occupied territory and an attempt to spread its borders beyond the Jordan River will prove them right. This could lead to a general conflict in the Middle East with unforeseeable consequences. Although one should not exclude such an eventuality, we hope that the lunacy of the Zionists and Christian fundamentalists will never get to this point of no-return. Let us now look at other proposed solutions.

V. Creation of two States

The International Community views the two-States solution as the only possible one to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, one state dominated by a Jewish majority, and the other by a Muslim majority. All the propositions have in common the exclusion of the refugees' right to return inside the 1967 borders of Israel, although the Palestinians continually reaffirm this right. Some propositions permit the integration of a few thousands of refugees as a gesture of goodwill on behalf of Israel. Other propositions forbid even the Palestinian state to open its doors to the Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, whereas Israel will keep the right to allow all Jews, including converts, to come and settle in the Palestinian refugees' lands and houses. The Palestinian state in question would not be a State benefiting from all prerogatives of sovereignty. Thus, its outside borders and airspace, as well as its water resources will remain under the control of the Israelis. It will not be allowed to get weapons or to have military alliances that would threaten Israel. In short, it is nothing else than a vassal State to Israel. The main goal of this solution is to bury forever the Palestinian refugees' right to return home and to legitimize the injustice committed by Israel against them.

It is said that Hitler wanted to send a maritime fleet to the Dead Sea. Someone pointed to him that it is a closed sea without any passage. Those that propose the two-States solution should first look at the geographical map before telling us where they would like to put the two States in a small piece of land like a pocketsized handkerchief. However, suppose that this solution is feasible, what will be its consequences?

1) The State of Israel will remain dominated by the Jews, practicing discrimination against women and the non-Jewish that live there, notably by continuing its policy of destruction of the still existing localities of Palestinians, and of dispossession of their lands, while relegating them to second zone citizens, and continually threatening them with deprivation of Israeli nationality and political rights. It will be a State that violates human rights on a large scale and getting more and more fanatic, under an increasing weight of the religious parties. Religious liberty will be banished. Ethnic cleansing will continue. The present racial laws will be accentuated, and one cannot exclude the re-emergence of the draft of law proposed by Rabbi Kahane to the Knesset in September 1984, of which we mention here some paragraphs:

- No non-Jew shall live within the area of the City of Jerusalem.
- Non-Jews will have no national rights, nor will they be permitted to take part in the political life of the State of Israel. No non-Jew can be appointed to a position of authority. No non-Jew may play a part in the elections to the Knesset or any other state or public institution.
- It is forbidden for Jewish male and female citizens and residents of the State to marry non-Jews either in Israel or abroad. The law will not recognize such mixed marriages.
- There will be a complete separation of Jewish and non-Jewish educational institutions.
- It is forbidden for Jewish male and female citizens of the State to have sexual relations, complete or partial, of any kind with non-Jews, and this includes extra-marital relations. Violations of this section of the law will be sentenced to two years in prison.
- A non-Jew who has sexual relations with a Jewish prostitute or with a Jewish male will be sentenced to five years in prison.
- A Jewish prostitute or a Jewish male who has relations with a non-Jewish male is subject to imprisonment for five years.
- Summer camps and all Jewish-Arab institutions are to be abolished. Programs for visits between Jewish and Arab students in their respective villages and homes are forbidden. Trips and visits abroad where a Jewish child is a guest in a non-Jewish home are forbidden, as are similar visits to Israel by non-Jews

Let us specify that Rabbi Kahane has been supported by the highest religious echelons in Israel, for instance by the former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren. The latter opposed the law against racism, which although more formal than real, did not make a difference between Jews and Goys (non-Jews) in its denunciation of racism. He, as well as the current Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, were opposed to meetings between young Jews and non-Jews 30).

2) The supposed Palestinian State will be an Islamic State, practicing discrimination against women and the non-Muslims that live there. The draft of Palestinian constitution is an indicator that does not deceive in this respect 31). The Islamic law will have the last word, notably concerning family and inheritance. Religious liberty will be banished. The Palestinian refugees, principal losers, will foment a civil war, will murder their leaders and will continue their attacks against the state of Israel. To put an end to these attacks, Israel will reoccupy the territory of the Palestinian state, and we will be back to square one. Facing the crushing strength of Israel, it is not excluded that the Palestinian refugees will resort to non-conventional weapons, easy to produce and to hide and capable to disarray the enemy. The world will then watch the mutual extermination of Palestinians and Jews. It will be Hitler's posthumous victory. Palestine will be then an uninhabited territory as Gruinard Island, off the coast of Scotland, used for biologic weapon experimentation by England during the Second World War 32). This is a real risk in the present situation, considering the despair into which the Palestinians are pushed 33).

VI. Creation of a democratic State

Facing the tragic consequences to which will ineluctably drive the two-States solution and the maintenance of the present situation, the only possible solution remains the creation of one single State in Palestine/Israel. A State that we can call Canaan, the biblical name of origin of this country, unless the population choose another name.

This solution is more and more advanced by Israelis and Palestinians 34). A sentimental argument pleads for this solution: both Jews and Palestinians consider all Palestine/Israel as their own homeland. To divide the country means to deprive the Jews and the Palestinians from a part of their beloved land. Both will feel frustrated. If we maintain the country united, each one would be able to live and to travel wherever he likes, without borders. He will have the feeling that all the country is his own country.

There is also the economic argument. Israelis have always employed Palestinian workers since 1967. When they tried to punish the Palestinians by refusing them the right to work in Israel, they were obliged to search for workers from Asia and Eastern European countries. Even today, Sharon uses Palestinian workers to build his wall. On the other side, Palestinians have few economic possibilities in the overcrowded West-Bank and Gaza, particularly after the destruction of their economic infrastructure by Israel, the confiscation of large part of their lands and uprooting of thousands of their fruit trees. A miserable situation has always been a fertile ground for extremism. You cannot sleep in peace when your neighbour is crying from hunger, especially when you are sleeping in his own land and home. An equitable economic policy in the region is an auspicious means for peace in the region.

Until now, no legal framework has been drawn for such a State, if one excepts the principles established by the association for one democratic State in Palestine/Israel 35). However, to be accepted by the two main antagonistic parts, i.e. Jews and Muslims, and sustained by the other minorities that live there, i.e. Christians, Druze, Samaritans and Seculars, such a solution needs a legal framework guaranteeing the respect of human rights, security and prosperity.

With regard to the main violation of human rights in Palestine/Israel, i.e. the expulsion of the Palestinians from their lands and the destruction of their localities and possessions, the proposed state must allow the return and the concession of nationality to all Palestinian refugees who wish it. An equitable solution must be found for those living on the lands and in the homes of the Palestinian refugees and for those living in the settlements created after 1967 36). All political prisoners and prisoners of war must be liberated. Reconciliation commissions must be created to heal and compensate the victims of both sides. A national fund must be created for this purpose. Citizens of the new State are entitled to live anywhere within its borders and to settle on their own property. A law respecting the principle of non-discrimination must regulate citizenship and immigration.

The Jews fear that the creation of one State will produce a mathematical Muslim majority and the application of discriminatory norms. The other communities share this same fear. The Muslims and the other minorities fear also the discrimination practiced by a State with a Jewish majority, as it is presently the case in Israel. To dissipate this fear on all sides, it is imperative that religion stop being criteria of discrimination and privileges. This means that the state must be secular. This implies the abolition of all the religious courts and laws, particularly in the field of family law, the creation of civil courts and the adoption of one family law respecting the principle of non-discrimination based on religion and gender. In such a State, the religious adherence imports little, and people will be judged on the basis of their competences. The secular system will allow mixed marriages and help the progressive integration of the different communities. The tie of blood thus created will be a guarantor for the maintenance of the unity of the country. It would require the creation of a civil register and the instauration of mandatory civil marriage, with the possibility of subsequently holding a religious ceremony.

It is important to avoid the creation of a confederation of two political entities. Such entities would maintain the existing discriminatory laws and courts in Israel and in the occupied territories. It is also necessary to avoid the Lebanese system, which does not respect the religious freedom and provokes frictions between the different communities.

The State must have a unified, democratically elected parliament and government. Political parties must respect the principle of non-discrimination in their programmes and membership. The State must have a unified army and a unified police force. The citizens shall decide upon a unified, democratic constitution respecting the principle of non-discrimination, on the name of the country, on its national anthem and on its flag.

The State must respect the right to life and physical integrity. This implies the abolition of death penalty as well as male and female circumcision. The State must also respect the right to freedom of religion, including the right to change one’s religion.

The State must provide an education system integrating all of its citizens. This implies the creation of unified State schools and high schools, and programmes respecting the principle of non-discrimination, with the possibility of establishing private schools, provided that they respect the principle of non-discrimination. Arabic and Hebrew are to be the official national languages. Principles for the peaceful solution of conflicts must be applied.

The State must create a social and economic system based on the equality of rights, integrating all of its citizens and respecting the principle of non-discrimination.

The State must take integrating measures to encourage reconciliation between the different communities. Such measures include the creation of unified cemeteries where any person can be buried, with the possibility of private religious ceremonies, and the opening of the present religious cemeteries to any person whatever his/her religion in conformity with the principle of non-discrimination. The Swiss Constitution of 1874 that aimed to reconcile Catholics and Protestant inspires this measure.

Other neighbouring States may join the proposed State in a federation or confederation, on the condition that they strictly respect the above-mentioned principles. Confederations of the "limping camels type" are to be avoided by all means.

The one-State solution has the advantage of fully respecting human rights, eliminating the discrimination based on religion or gender, and reducing fanaticism in the region. It may very well serve as model to the neighbouring countries. The aforementioned principles aim at a profound change of the society, meaning much more than a superficial political solution.

VII. Conclusion

In his address given to the Knesset upon receiving Israel's highest honour for his accomplishments as a musician, May 5, 1991, violinist Sir Yehudi Menuhin said:

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword and terror and fear provoke terror and fear. Hatred and contempt are fatally infectious … One fact is surely abundantly clear, namely this wasteful governing by fear, by contempt for the basic dignities of life, this steady asphyxiation of a dependent people should be the very last means to be adopted by those who themselves know too well the awful significance, the unforgettable suffering of such an existence ... It is unworthy of my great people, the Jews 37).

In an interview, Father Elias Chacour, original of Biram, one of villages destroyed by Israel, said:

We are second-class citizens, yes, if there are such classes. I believe though that in Israel there is only one class, the class of Jewish citizenship. There is thereafter the area of a non-class, a margin where non-Jews are tolerated, because they cannot be put away, but are not accepted. Happily there are Jews, though very few - but they do exist - who protest against this segregation. I am afraid that there is little time left. I am afraid that if Israel does not change fundamentally its policies and political direction, I think there will remain only one alternative to survive here, that is the military alternative. This cannot take roots here, because Palestine, since before Abraham, since Melchizedek, has never accepted conquerors that did not try to get roots here. They are not attempting to plant roots. They are now planting hatred in the hearts of Palestinians. This must change if they wish to live and survive with a certain quality of human life in the Middle East 38).

The authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dated December 10, 1948, state in the preamble: is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

The aforementioned statement is nothing but a confirmation of the words of Prophet-Poet Isaiah, who 2.700 years ago, said: "Peace will be the fruit of justice" (Isaiah 32:17).

If Israel really looks for peace in the Middle East, it must abide by this principle of justice instead of procrastinating in its policy violating human rights. For this, it must allow the Palestinian refugees to come back home and treat Palestinians as it treats Jews.

Why the fact of being a Christian or a Muslim does makes a Palestinian a candidate for a refugee camp, torture, deportation or death? Why?

The day when Christians, Muslims and Jews will be considered and treated by Israel and its allies as equal human beings, this day will be the first day of peace in the Middle East. It is time to stop building walls and start building bridges towards a just peace in the spirit of Isaiah.

Sami Aldeeb

1) Christian Arab of Palestinian origin and Swiss citizenship, holding a doctorate in law from the University of Fribourg. Graduate in political sciences from the Graduate Institute of International Studies of Geneva. Responsible for Arab and Islamic law in the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law in Lausanne ( He has written many books and articles on Arab and Islamic law besides more general works on the Middle East (see the list and some articles in: He is the chairman of the Association for one democratic state in Palestine/Israel

2) See this agreement in:

3) Ben-Gurion: Zionistische Aussenpolitik, Berlin, 1937, p. 28, quoted by V. Waltz & J. Zschiesche: Die Erde habt Ihr uns genommen, Berlin, 1986, p. 30.

4) The Transfer committee recommended that if Israel were compelled to take back refugees, she must categorically refuse to return them to their villages - only to the towns, where they should not exceed 15% of the Jewish population (Tom Segev: 1949, the first Israelis, The Free Press, Macmillan, New York & London, 1986, p. 30).

5) Concerning the Palestinian exodus, see the article by Amnon Kapeliouk: Nouvelles précisions sur l'exode des Palestiniens à la lumière des archives officielles de l'Etat juif, in Le Monde Diplomatique, December 1986, p. 18-19.

6) Israel Shahak: Israeli League for human and civil rights, The Shahak papers, published by Palestine research centre, Beirut, 1973, p. 95-96.

7) Christophe Uehlinger: Palestinian localities destroyed after 1948, a documentary list, 1989, 2nd edition, Association for the Reconstruction of Emmaus, CH-1025 St-Sulpice. See the list in:

8) Uri Davis: Israel an apartheid State, Zed books, London & New Jersey, 1987, p. 17-18. Tom Segev tells how the Arab inhabitants of Haifa have been forced to withdraw to a ghetto neighbourhood and leave their houses and lots to Jews (Tom Segev, op. cit., p. 52-56).

9) Law of return, Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 4, p. 28-29.

10) Law of return (amendment nr. 2), Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 24, p. 28.

11) Nationality law, Laws of the State of Israel, vol.6, p. 50-52.

12) Nationality law (amendment nr. 3), Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 25, p. 117.

13) Claude Klein: Le caractère juif de l'Etat d'Israël, Edition Cujas, Paris 1977, p. 97.

14) United Nations: The right of return of the Palestinian people, St/SG/SER.F/2, New York, 1978.

15) Tom Segev, op. cit., p. 61-63.

16) Prevention of infiltration (Offences and jurisdiction) law, Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 8, p. 133-137.

17) CICP (Geneva), Information nr 39, 27 January 1992, p. 8.

18) See

19) The Association for the reconstruction of Emmaus was founded in Switzerland in 1986. A pamphlet concerning this village entitled Reconstruct Emmaus, Symbol of Peace and Justice has been published in French, English and German and can be obtained at the address of the Association (Ochettaz 17, CH-1025 St-Sulpice). See the photos of the destruction of Emmaus in:

20) Davar, Sept. 29, 1967, quoted by Uri Davis, op. cit., p. 5.

21) Tom Segev, op. cit., p. 30.

22) Journal de Genève and Le Monde of Febr. 25, 1988.

23) Jerusalem (Tunis), nr. 38, June 1988, p. 32.


25) Yedioot Ahronot, 24 January 2002 and 5 April 2002.

26) See pages 48-50 of the report

27) Return (London), nr 2, March 1990, p. 33. See also .

28) International Herald Tribune, 31 October 2003:

29) La Liberté (Fribourg), 31 Oct./1st Nov. 1985; MEI, 22 Nov. 1985, p. 15. See a comparison of Kahane's draft and Hitler's racial laws in:

30) Jerusalem Post, 24 March 1986, p. 3.

31) See my commentary in: Article 5 of this draft says: "Islam is the official Palestinian religion". Article 6 adds: "The principles of Islamic Shari’a are a major source for legislation".

32) See about this Island:

33) There are informations about the risk of using biological weapons by the Palestinians. See:;;; Let it be mentioned that Israel has already chemical, biological and atomic weapons. See:;;;;;

34) See the articles in: and

35) See the bylaws of the association in different languages in:

36) Let it be mentioned that a great part of the Palestinian lands are still unoccupied, often covered by forests to hide the traces of the destroyed villages. This is the case of the three villages in the region of Latrun as well as Ikrit and Biram in the North of Israel. The return of the Palestinian refugees in these lands should not create major problems.

37) The Israeli media have totally ignored this address. Only one Palestinian newspaper, Al-Fajr, has dared transgressing the occult rule of silence, by publishing it on May 20, 1991. See the English version in: Washington Report on Middle East affairs, July 1991: Address given by violinist Sir Yehudi Menuhin to the Knesset upon receiving Israel's highest honor for his accomplishments as a musician, May 5, 1991:

38) Interview given to the International Catholic Press Agency in May 1988.