ECOSOC—Committee on NGOs January 24, 2006 BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights Chair: We will now examine organization 28, BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. [pause] Distinguished delegates, I would like to ask you whether we could suspend the meeting for five minutes. I would like to consult during this period. So we’re going to suspend the meeting for five minutes. Break Chair: is the Committee ready to take a decision? Israel: In the previous session of the Committee, my delegation has stated that it was studying answers provided by the organization and that it was going to come back with the response/reaction to these answers. And I must say that after studying these answers provided by BADIL and discerning the alarming discrepancies between them and various statements issued by this NGO in the past, our concerns not only remain unaddressed, but worse yet have rather intensified. I would like to refer mainly to two issues. Before that maybe, let me remind the Committee what I said about the particular style of BADIL which we find aggressive to say the least, intolerant, using in some cases what could only be described as anti-Semitic language and images. All these things, I think, need to be addressed by the Committee in its communication with the organization. Examples are plenty—describing the Prime Minister of Israel as a driver of a bulldozer rolling over the bodies of Palestinians, or depicting a fence made of daggers and blood coming out of the earth I think is quite an alarming fashion of making a point, no matter what this point is. But the two issues that I wanted to specifically indicate, Madam Chair, the question of BADIL’s position on terrorism and BADIL’s position on the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. On the first, Madam Chair, BADIL stated that it has not and will not support any form of violence that is inconsistent with the provisions of international law and quote inflicts harm to unarmed civilians, but in fact, Madam Chair, BADIL openly supports terrorism and glorifies suicide bombers as martyrs in various of its statements. Just to give an example, BADIL was one of the Signatories of the final statement of the fourth annual meeting of the so-called Palestine Right of Return Coalition on November 10, 2003 which concludes with the following words: “Long live the Intifada, eternal glory for our pious martyrs.” This is not an isolated quotation. Many similar to it exist in various press releases of this NGO. When asked about its views regarding the right of Jews to self-determination, BADIL answered that it did not contest this right. And again, in a show of verbal acrobatics added, and I quote, “The Question of Israel’s founding is not really an issue today because Israel has achieved recognition as a sovereign state.” But these two iterations are rather different, aren’t they? As a matter of fact, they are rather contradictory and disguise BADIL’s real views on this fundamental issue. Madam Chair, indeed BADIL’s literature is rife with negation of this right when it comes to the Jewish people, a position that places this NGO in clear discord with the fundamental principle of the UN Charter—the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. One example of BADIL’s real beliefs, Madam Chair, can be seen in a statement of this NGO from April 8, 2000 that reads as follows, and I quote “Racism, discrimination and ethnic cleansing policies are inherent, inherent in the Zionist model of the exclusive Jewish state.” Zionism, as the Committee may well recall, is the national self-determination movement of the Jewish people, which therefore leads me to the inevitable question, does BADIL maintain that Zionism is racism? Madam Chair, given the enormous significance of this question to my delegation, I cannot see how the Committee can afford to proceed with this application and take a decision on it without requesting unequivocal clarifications. These are my comments for now. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair: I thank the delegate of Israel. United States, you have the floor. United States: Thank you Madam Chair. I want to start by saying I want to thank the organization for submitting this answers in a quickly matter, in a good fashion. Regarding the comments made just now, I think some questions posed by the delegation of Israel deserve some answer and some clarification and have raised some question at least in my delegation. So I’m wondering, I know it’s not customary for the Committee to do so, but I do notice that there is a representative of this NGO in the room. according to the list I have of this morning’s session and I am flexible on this, I could either, rather than pose a new question to this NGO and require a written answer, I would not be, it would be fine with me if I could do it on a dialogue basis with the member of the organization’s representative from the podium, so maybe through you, Madam Chair, I would be happy if we could do that now, or as discussed [inaudible] in the afternoon session from 5-6. I’m flexible on that. But I do have one question to ask this particular NGO and it’s maybe to clarify the more important question to us, of significance, is that of the relationship of that they find between Zionist as a form of racism, and if they can come back to us and give me a concise answer regarding what is their position on this—do they believe, is that their belief as an NGO or not? And it would be important for my delegation to have a clear answer on this, a clearer understanding of their position on this, in order to move on with this particular application. My delegation is impressed by some of the letters of support submitted to the NGO from other Jewish organizations which clearly identify that they work with this particular NGO, but at the same time recognize they have some differences on some issues, which is understandable, I think we all have differences at a certain level, but we always find a common ground for a common purpose. And with that regard is that I like to look at this particular answer and establish dialogue with this representative. Thank you. Chair: I thank the delegate of the United States. Before putting his proposal, are there any other delegates who wish to take the floor? Germany, you have the floor. Germany: Thank you, Madam Chair, just very briefly, we have listened with great attention to the statement made by the observer delegation of Israel and we take those concerns very seriously. They do raise concerns in my delegation too, and we are therefore very much in favor of having a thorough and hopefully clarifying dialogue with the representative of the NGO—we are open to do this now and if necessary continue in the afternoon so as to have a clear picture of the issues and concerns raised and we are happy to participate in that dialogue. Thank you very much. Chair: I thank the delegate of Germany. Senegal, you have the floor. Senegal: Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation understands the concerns of some delegations with regard to this NGO, nevertheless we do believe that this application which comes back to us regularly should be studied in the same way as the other applications from whomever we receive them. It is an NGO which is defending the Palestinian refugees’ cause and therefore we would recommend that it does get the status requested. The representative is in the room, and as the delegate of Germany, I believe we could listen to that representative if there’s no objection to that, and he or she could respond to all the questions that have been raised. My delegation would like to see a decision taken during this session and that it receive special status. Thank you. Chair: Senegal. Sudan, you have the floor. Sudan: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Chair. Of course, we do understand some concerns expressed by the distinguished delegates of the United States and Germany regarding this NGO, however, all the justifications put forward regarding this request, in my judgment, would not be hindering the work of our Committee, but we have to remember that this application has remained suspended since the last session and in our first reaction that this application according to the narrative here, we did not feel that there is any racist or negative activity. Quite the contrary, this NGO undertakes activities, which in our judgment, are at the core of the functions and purposes of the Economic and Social Council. We have to take into account the nature of the activities of this NGO. Also, these activities are fully in accord with the provisions of Resolution 1969/31 which governs the proceedings of this Committee in dealing with these applications. In point of fact, at this point we do see that this NGO has received a number of questions and continuously provided adequate and relevant answers. Then the question that would arise now: would this application remain in abeyance while more and more questions are submitted to it? Therefore, I think that the argument put forward by Senegal is quite relevant and important, i.e. we should take a decision on this application at this session. Thank you, Madam. Chair: I thank the delegate of Sudan. Iran, you have the floor. Iran: Thank you Madam Chairperson. My delegation would like to support the statement made by distinguished delegates of Sudan and Senegal. Chair: I thank the representative of Iran. I understand that the view of the Committee is that we could invite the representative of the organization, BADIL, to have a dialogue with us now. This usually happens at five p.m., but on other occasions we have also done so at different times. If there are no objections, maybe we could invite the representative. Now, I see no objections. I would like to invite the representative of the BADIL organization if they are in the room. I thank the representative for being here today. Please take note of the questions which the delegate of the United States has submitted to you and I give you the floor. BADIL: Thank you. I’m more than happy to answer questions. I’m Susan Akram. I’m associate professor at Boston University. I’ve been involved with BADIL’s work and in fact have been one of the main drafters of much of the work that has come out of BADIL. The work, my work is part of the international legal support network that functions to sort of guide the positions that BADIL has drafted on the basis of international law. So in terms of the issues that have actually been developed at BADIL, as far as the legal positions, I’m more than happy to respond to any questions, specific or general, about those. As far as other kinds of materials that I’m hearing for the first time, I have no knowledge about, for example, the statement about the Prime Minister or the depiction of – I’m not sure what it was -- it sounded like an illustration, of course BADIL does not do illustrative materials, their work is position papers and statements on the basis of international law. So with that caveat, more than happy to answer any specific or general questions. Shall I begin with some of yours? The issue about Zionism is racism—this is actually not a position that BADIL has done intensive research on. I know that there are at least two, perhaps three definitions of Zionism, it’s not clear which one is being referred to. In terms of what BADIL’s position would be in general terms, it would be very close to the authoritative position of the United Nations, as embodied in that early document by Tom and Sally Mallison, in which Zionism was examined as part of what the UN’s understanding of it was in the drafting of Resolution 181 and 194 and Tom and Sally Mallison’s work remains to my mind the most authoritative work on this question. To the extent that Zionism is considered to be an exclusive right of the Jewish people to the exclusion of the Palestinian people--that would be prohibited discrimination, as of course every UN document and the UN charter prohibits religious-based discrimination or ethnic-based discrimination across the board. And so BADIL’s position would be consistent with that. Chair: I thank the representative for her answer. Does any delegation wish to ask any questions? Germany, you have the floor. Germany: Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe around this difficult and sensitive issue, my delegation would like to ask the representative a question concerning the NGO declaration that was passed at the World Conference against Racism in Durban. This declaration—it’s a very long declaration, under paragraph 194 called for the reinstitution of UN Resolution 3379 determining that practices of Zionism as racism, the famous, infamous I should rather say, Zionism equals Racism Resolution which was repealed by the United Nations in 1991. And my delegation would just be interested to hear if the representative could shed some light on what BADIL’s role has been in this particular case. We believe this is, this call to be one of the most disturbing ones to come out of the sidelines, as it were, of that conference, and we would be very grateful to have some clarification on that. Thank you. Chair: [inaudible] Germany. You have the floor. BADIL: Yes, the view was of course part of a coalition of groups working together on Palestine issues at Durban. This particular document, and I think there were at least two documents produced by that coalition, was not drafted by BADIL. BADIL did not necessarily have a position on every single paragraph in those two documents. As I said, BADIL has not studied this question, has not put out its usual authoritative analysis, I mean that reaches consensus amongst the legal support network. So that particular paragraph doesn’t represent either a platform that BADIL has, but was simply part of a coalition working that BADIL was engaged in. So I know of no position that BADIL has taken specifically on that question as part of BADIL’s platform of work. Chair: I thank the representative for her answers. I see that there aren’t any more concerns from members of the Committee and I’d like to thank you for having come to the Committee. United States, I believe, wants the floor. United States: Thanks, Madam Chair, and through you I’d like to thank the representative of the organization to answer these questions. I still have a sense of un-clarity frankly on some of the answers. I guess I’m, I’m not really certain what the position is, I mean it is a document that you signed, and for us it’s customary here that if we don’t, if we sign a document as a whole, means we’re in agreement of that particular document, unless you make a statement removing yourself from that consensus on that particular, or a claratory statement, for example, the United States have done multiple of those regarding the issue of women and reproductive rights where we disassociate ourselves from that or we clarify our position on that. In this particular case brought up by Germany, I don’t see that that’s the case. I understand that maybe you did not personally act on that particular statement and drafting of that particular statement, but if you’re a signatory it would allude to me that you support it in some sort, unless, but from your answer what I’m getting is not that, but it’s also not the other side, it’s kind of a fine line and I’d like to get a little more from you. Do you not—a little bit more, maybe, I don’t know if I’m making myself clear on this, but it does seem to me that you didn’t, as an organization you didn’t really reject that particular notion and you were perfectly fine signing onto it. Thank you. Chair: I thank the United States. Germany. Germany: Yes, just two points. Maybe it would help us clarify the issue, if the question was also put in another way and that is: would BADIL sign up to that kind of statement today? That would be my delegation’s question. If that came up again today in some kind of a meeting—would you sign up to that? That’s my question and also I would like to request through you, Madam Chair, the representative also to comment on the comments made by Israel earlier on, on the issue of terrorism, violence and BADIL’s position on that. I think Israel put a few of the points really succinctly and we would be happy if the representative could go into BADIL’s position on these issues a little bit further. Chair: I thank the delegate of Germany. Cuba. Cuba: Thank you, Madam Chair. In this case, our delegation is very satisfied with the answers given by the organization. We think that it is an organization which perfectly complies with the goals and the purposes of ECOSOC and we have no problem with it. But despite the fact that we are holding this debate at this time exceptionally, I think that usually this debate takes place in the afternoon. We understand the responses given by the organization and the wish for the delegates to continue with this debate, but we are prepared to take a decision on this immediately, but we would like to stress the fact that we still have a group of organizations which we have to review, and it would be important for the organization to finish its work and proceed to have the debate at the appropriate time, or at least to take a decision as soon as possible on this case. Thank you. Chair: I thank the delegate of Cuba. If the members of the Committee, well I would like to invite the representative to continue the dialogue at five p.m. if the members could agree. This would give us time, give her time for her to review the questions. Sudan you have the floor. Sudan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry to take the floor again on the same issue. But my understanding was that we took this case as an exceptional case so we discuss it even in the time she will not usually discuss having the representative of the NGO. Now I think it’s clear now, everything is clear, the answers was at least very very satisfaction answers and I do believe we should take action since we start already listening to the representative of the NGO. Or why don’t we from the beginning just [inaudible] as the representative of the NGO may come at 5:00. Now the representative of the NGO is before us, our questions are already answered, so thank you Madam Chair. Chair: Thank you, Sudan. So I take it there is no consensus and I wonder whether delegations are ready to have a dialogue now. I would like to ask the representative of the organization to answer the questions which have been raised. BADIL: Sure, maybe I could start in order. First of all, in terms of what I—I’m sorry it seems like I’ve muddied the waters rather than clarified things. Of course that was not my intention. NGOS, perhaps you wouldn’t know maybe not having worked on this side, don’t operate the way governments do, they’re not required to file reservations for specific issues on a treaty that they sign or to submit specific dissenting positions when they work in coalition, they try to work together and there may not always be agreement within the coalition between all of the views of the NGOs. This is sort of standard operating procedure. I can’t apologize for that, it’s sort of just the way things work. And BADIL was part of this as an effort to bring together all of the various voices across the spectrum on the issues concerning Palestinians and so signed on to something, the sum of the parts of--when each part may not have been along with BADIL’s particular perspective. And I meant to preface my discussion about this again by saying that most of the positions that BADIL takes are positions that have been researched and analyzed by its legal support network before they are put out there. There are some statements that have not yet reached that stage where we have not got a consensus yet among the international legal support network and the Zionism question and the question about terrorism, of course being hampered further on that question by the fact that the UN itself has no definition of terrorism, very generally BADIL's position has been from the start and continues to be within the weight of international authority, as consensus is reached by the legal support network. On the issue of whether BADIL would sign today, I would say probably not, again because some of these questions require further analysis and a really detailed legal position, and that has not been done on particularly these two questions that have arisen today. And that partially answers the last question about violence and terrorism. There’s also not a stated position because we don’t have a clear legal definition of what international terrorism is or terrorism is, and therefore we can’t develop a position on that. But categorically BADIL is not engaged in violence or terrorism. This is not its mission. It’s a--it’s an NGO with a--that sees itself as clarifying international law. That is why we have this really well-respected international group of legal support network and why I as a law professor have been involved with this organization since the beginning. To my mind it’s one of the most professional NGOs that I have seen anywhere and why I have spent so much time and energy working with them to promote the positions that BADIL has promoted. Chair: I thank the representative. Senegal. Senegal: Thank you, Madam Chair, my delegation would just like to give our opposition with regards to taking a decision. Since we are having a discussion with the representative of the NGO, we don’t need to wait until 5 this afternoon, but if we do not have enough time now, we could do it at 3pm, this afternoon but not at 5pm this afternoon—that is, make a decision. Thank you. Chair: I thank the representative of Senegal. It seems the representative of the organization may have something to add. I give her the floor. BADIL: I just wanted to point out, that amongst the about a dozen letters of support that BADIL has, five of them are from Jewish and/or Israeli organizations. BADIL’s main legal, the core of BADIL’s legal positions have been translated into Hebrew and are being used by Israeli NGOs as part of their Hebrew packet so I just wanted to make that clear that BADIL’s work is hand in hand with both Israeli and international Jewish organizations. Chair: Thank you. Israel. Israel: Thank you. And I’d like to thank Professor Akram for being here and answering our questions. Professor, could you please help me out here and tell me what was the purpose of your last statement regarding the letters of support that you received from Israeli and Jewish organizations? Thank you. Chair: I thank the Israeli delegation. You have the floor, Mam. BADIL: Yes, actually it was in response to your very first statement which was that some of BADIL’s statements were anti-Semitic. Chair: Thank you. It’s almost 1:00. I’ll give the floor to the delegate of Israel and then we will proceed with our work. Israel: Thank you, Madam. Professor Akram, this does mean that by this you are inferring that if a statement made by BADIL is supported by a Jewish organization, that automatically makes it impossible for it to be anti-Semitic? Thank you. Chair: I thank the Israeli delegation and give you the floor. BADIL: Hello, yeah. Of course I wasn’t suggesting that. Merely that the evidence suggests that it’s highly unlikely that some of the key NGOs working within Israel would support a position that would be anti-Semitic. One is not the equivalent of the other, but one certainly suggests that it’s less likely that an NGO would be engaged in anti-Semitism if its partners are Jewish and Israeli organizations. Chair: Thank you. United States. United States: Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to take the floor for the last time, and to thank the representative of the NGO. I think your last questions clarify our position, of your position regarding BADIL and we truly want to thank you for taking the time and coming to us and answering some of the questions that we’ve posed for you today. Thank you. Chair: I thank the delegate of the United States. On behalf of the Committee I’d like to thank the representative of BADIL for having been here at this meeting. The Committee has been very generous in allowing me to change our tradition and I’d like to thank you very much. Thank you for the invitation. The delegate of Palestine has the floor. Palestinian observer: Thank you Madam Chair. My delegation just wishes to take the floor at this point to again voice our strong support for BADIL. This organization is extremely important to my delegation as well as to the Palestinian people, in that they provide pertinent analysis and information regarding the situation of Palestine refugees. Their work and analysis is based on international law and in completely in line and relevant to the work of ECOSOC, so we reiterate our support. And for the request for consultative status with the Council to be granted which in our opinion will only enhance their work that’s--their important work that’s already being done. Just to respond briefly to some of the questions or statements posed by the Israeli representative, obviously my delegation cannot speak on behalf of BADIL, and--but we believe that after the questions that they have answered during the previous session and the answers that Professor Akram has just answered, we believe that they are clear and thorough, and we also want to also again mention that, you know, the letters that had been submitted on behalf of many NGOs in support by BADIL from Jewish and Israeli organizations, does indicate that BADIL is not the organization that the representative of Israel would like to depict, or is attempting to depict. BADIL is a Palestinian organization that is representing the refugees of Palestine, and my delegation cannot help but wonder if that is the real issue that the representative of Israel has. Having said all that, my delegation believes that this organization should not be deferred, there is no reason, and we hope again that the members of this distinguished Committee will grant this organization the consultative status it deserves without further delay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair: I thank the delegate of Palestine. Israel, you have the floor. Israel: Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me start from the end. Let me be also very clear. Israel does not have a problem with all the activities of this organization. It doesn’t have a problem with organizations who are trying to assist Palestinian refugees. It doesn’t have a problem with Palestinian NGOS in general. As a matter of fact, the Committee knows and I’m sure that the Palestinian--representative of the Palestinian Observer Mission knows, that there is a whole UN mechanism dedicated to assisting Palestinian refugees and Israel works together with this mechanism. However, we still remain dissatisfied and alarmed by some of the answers that we’ve heard. We don’t find them unequivocal. We were a little surprised to hear that the person speaking on behalf of BADIL is not aware of cartoons that appear on the BADIL website. Maybe not the work of members of BADIL, but definitely by way of being present on a website, reflecting sentiments maybe, of the organization or its members. The response to the question of the right of Jewish people to self-determination was also far from being satisfactory. I think that it is not really up to the General Assembly to -- or to ECOSOC for that matter -- to start reevaluating or reassessing what is the definition of Zionism. Just like we don’t ask other peoples what is the definition of their national movements. It is kind of strange for my delegation, the delegation of the Jewish state may I remind all present here, that somebody would like to tell us how to define our desire for national self-determination. So, I see that we’re almost at 1:00 and I’m definitely, I mean if there’s one thing I would like to leave the Committee with is, again a sense of distress and worry about what we heard from the representative of the organization. How can Professor Akram say that they have not yet been able to establish their position on Zionism? If I am not mistaken, the NGO declaration was taken 4 and 1/2 years ago at Durban, and at the same time say that they would probably not adhere to such a declaration nowadays. I mean if such an evaluation by legal experts and its support of a legal network has not been concluded yet, that’s almost a non-sequitur. Anyway, I will stop here at this juncture and thank you for your time. Chair: I thank the delegate of Israel. It’s 1:00. I would like to suggest to the members of the Committee that we will continue with this application at 3pm and take a decision then and see where the delegations--unless delegations are prepared at this stage now to take a decision. It seems not, therefore we will return to it. And I’d like to make an announcement. The Secretariat has received a letter with a complaint which we are distributing now. The letter is make a compliant to the Islamic Relief Organization — Agency, sorry - from the United States. I would like you to look at the letter because we are going to tackle that subject tomorrow morning. This afternoon, we are going to continue with our deferred applications before going to the other items on the agenda. The meeting is adjourned. AFTERNOON Chair: I’d like to welcome you to this afternoon’s meeting. I call to order the 8th meeting of the 2006 session of the Committee on Non Governmental Organizations. We’ll continue with the agenda, proceeding from this morning. I’d like to remind delegates that we are reviewing the BADIL organization and I’ll wait until you are all in your seats. I’d like to ask the members of the Committee whether they are ready to take a decision and to grant special status to the BADIL organization? I see no objections. This is so decided. Germany has the floor. Germany: Excuse me, Madam Chair, I was just—I was not in my place when the gavel went down. Did we just make a recommendation, the recommendation to grant special status to the organization? Chair: Yes. Do you have a comment? Germany: Yes, my delegation would like to make a statement in connection with this decision. Madam Chair, my delegation did not take this decision to a vote, despite serious reservations against taking it at this stage. We recognize that this organization does valuable and professional work in the field of assistance to Palestinian refugees. However, we do have serious concerns about the organization’s involvement in an attempt by a number of NGOs to reinstate General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism in 2001. In our view, this issue is clearly settled. The General Assembly revoked this resolution in 1991 and rightly so. We share the assessment expressed by many that General Assembly Resolution 3379 was an anti-Semitic low point in the history of the United Nations. But we appreciate that the representative of the NGO has distanced BADIL from the call for the reinstatement of this resolution, my delegation would have found it important to be given the opportunity to gain complete clarity on this issue and my delegation believes this would have required only very little time. Due to the fact that a number of delegations insisted that we take a decision here and now we regrettably have not been given this opportunity. My delegation therefore disassociates itself from the decision just taken by the Committee and we would request that this statement be properly reflected in the Committee’s report. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair: I thank Germany. This will be recorded. I now give the floor to the United States. United States: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we wanted to take the floor prior to this--taking action on this. We understand that in order to run the Committee in an expeditious matter, in this regard, I was taken a little back by the [inaudible] of the gavel—and I wasn’t prepared at that time to take action on this, however, given that that is the case, my delegation will also like to disassociate itself from this decision on this NGO and would like that to be stated on the record. My delegation still remains with some doubts and some concerns remain, we are aware of their work that this NGO does, and we are satisfied in some elements of the work of this particular NGO regarding humanitarian affairs or legal aspects, however, we are concerned with the issues of the use or the lack of clarity that was there regarding the right of Israeli people for self-determination and the connection of Zionism as a form of racism. We certainly expect that this NGO behaves within the parameters, the full parameters, of the resolution and the spirit of the charter of the United Nations and we look forward to a productive relationship of this NGO with the United Nations and not one that will cause friction among member states. So with that said, again Madam Chair I would like to have my delegation disassociate itself from this particular decision. Thank you. Chair: I thank the delegate of the United States. This will be reflected in the report. I now give the floor to the delegate of France. France: Thank you, Madam Chairman. France also wishes to dissociate itself with the consensus on this file. We have studied with great care both the written report from this NGO as well as listening with great attention to its responses to the questions which were raised. We are aware and we fully recognize that this NGO does good work on the ground. At the same time, the answers she gave to one precise point this morning did not totally convince us. The United Nations has clearly pronounced itself on the equation of Zionism is equal to racism, and even if the NGO has not got a legally established position on this point, we regret that it has not displayed it some doubts on the subject this morning. We will follow with great care the way in which it will pronounce itself in future years and we will be very vigilant about that. And without being formally opposed to the decision of the Committee, we wish to disassociate ourselves like Germany and the United States from the decision of the Committee. Thank you. Chair: I thank the delegate of France. This will be reflected in the report also. I give the floor to the delegate of Israel. Israel: Thank you, Madam Chair. It will be pretty unsurprising if I also and I wish to take the floor, although the statements we just heard from the delegates of the US, France and Germany pretty much reflect our difficulties. After the deliberations of this morning and after the statements by the representative of the organization, my delegation is compelled to underline that the concerns with which it has started the morning with, still in our view remain. From the material available on the organization, as well as the material provided by it during our deliberations, it is difficult not to conclude that BADIL has a political agenda and that therefore does not live up to the obligations stemming from ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, especially paragraph 57(a) thereof, as well as the principles embodied in the charter of the United Nations. It is a good opportunity to reiterate that Israel supports the inclusion of NGOs within the UN system, and has not objected to granting status to several Palestinian NGOs in the past, even ones with whom we have differences of opinion. This, however is very different to an NGO whose mandate and activities are in opposition to the UN charter in several ways, who opposed the existence of a UN member states, who seems to espouse racist rhetoric, and who seeks to undermine the work of the United Nations and of the international community. My delegation remains concerned Madam Chair, as I said, and nothing in what was iterated by the representative of the organization can really appease our concerns. We will absolutely follow the activities and the statements and the literature of this organization in the future and you can rest assured that we will follow it closely. Thank you. Chair: I thank the delegate of Israel. We can now move on to the next application....   1