CHAPTER TWENTY SEVEN

THE INHUMAN SEPARATION OF PALESTINIAN FAMILIES

Part 2 of 2

"If she were Jewish, she could have come here without any problems andgotten a villa and a Volvo," he says, echoing the misconceptions once prevalent in Israel about the benefits awarded to new immigrants. "Isn't it racism when someone who is Jewish can come and live here freely, but if that person is gentile she can't?"

In Ramallah, also in a rented flat, Mohammed Najjar is living with his pregnant, Romanian-born wife Leticia and their daughter, Lina, in violation of the law.

Leticia, and Lina are liable to be ordered out of the country at any time, because their tourist visas have expired. They have been refused permanent residence in the West Bank.

Though the refusal has not been explained, it could well be linked to Najjar's two brief stints as a security prisoner. Israeli officials are not prone to grant family unification to persons who have been charged with anti-Israeli activity.

Najar, 31, is the eldest son of a refugee family which fled in 1948 from the village of Majdal, where Ashkelon now stands. He met his wife at a Romanian university where he studied electrical engineering from 1975 to 1982. Leticia completed her studies in French language and literature, graduating with a teacher's certificate. They were married in Romania in 198 1, and Lina was born there.

Leticia, who speaks Arabic with a Romanian accent, says her parents did not oppose her decision to marry and return with her husband to the West Bank, despite the political and economic difficulties.

However, it was not until 1984 that Najjar managed to obtain a visa for them to enter Israel, although the Israel Embassy in Bucharest had originally promised that it would be issued to them shortly after his return here.

Leticia and Lina entered the West Bank on a one-month visa, later extended to three months. Najjar's request in 1984 for family unification was rejected, and an additional application was turned down last year on the ground that his was "not an exceptional case in which unification requests are granted."

Najar says he has been told his wife must leave, and that he must wait a full year after rejection of his unification request before applying again.

Barred from permanent return to her native country, since she left on emigrant papers, Leticiacan only visit Romania as a tourist. Though Lina is now in first grade at a West Bank school and her mother is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, their future here still hangs in the balance.

Najjar's own situation is complicated by a travel ban, imposed after he served a three-month prison term in 1985 on a charge of belonging to a hostile organization during 1978. Najjar was detained for two and a half months and questioned on his return home from Romania in 1982.

He says the security services have refused to approve his employment as a teacher of electrical engineering forcing him to support himself by opening an optical supplies store. "I must stay in the country, and my wife must leave," he says.

The predicament of Najjar, Borghouth, and hundreds of other Palestinian families led to the recent formation of the Committee for Family Reunion, a product of joint efforts by the families, their lawyers and the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Non-Violence in East Jerusalem.

The committee has already held a press conference, and a public meeting to which it invited top defence officials to answer questions on Israel's family unification policy. None of the invitees — which included Defence Minister Rabin — arrived at the meeting, but it drew local and foreign media attention.

Committee members met recently with foreign consuls in Jerusalem, and are planning to discuss their problems with Israeli MKS. They have in mind a scheme for the adoption by organizations abroad of families refused unification. They are planning a demonstration in Jerusalem this month.

The committee has concentrated its efforts on pressing Israeli authorities to ease family unification procedures. Its specific demands have included the immediate grant of unification permits to married couples, allowing petitioners temporary residence and work permits until their application is answered; registering children on the ID card of the resident parent; and publishing precise criteria for processing unification requests.

The committee has also asked for cancellation of the regulation that aperson seeking permanent residence must be outside the territories when the unification application is made, and that one year must elapse between successive applications. (Israeli officials say that the former requirement is meant to prevent applicants from claiming rights to unification on the grounds that they are living in the area, with jobs and families.)

Many committee members have reported that family unification permits have been used to pressure them into cooperation with the Israeli authorities. At the committee's press conference, a young man from Gaza said that after his request was turned down, he was told it could be granted if he "worked with" Israel.

Committee spokesmen have also argued for the lowering of application fees for family unification. They say that the cost of repeated travel and residence abroad is prohibitive, averaging over $1,000 a year.

Family unification has been made even more expensive in cases where families use the services of middlemen, who offer to secure a permit in return for thousands of dollars. Their efforts do not always succeed, leaving some families poorer, but without their relatives.

The question of family unification, a uniquely humanitarian problem, thus remains unresolved. Critics of Israel's policy argue that in many countries, citizens can bring in foreign spouses, and are not subject to the restrictions prevalent in the territories. Israeli officials say that the restrictions are necessary for the welfare of the population. The clouded future of the territories is likely to aggravate the problem and prevent its resolution until a political settlement is reached in the area. (9)

THE RIGHT OF A FAMILY IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES TO REUNITE

Following is a report on family reunification submitted May 9, 1985 by Advocate Felicia Langer, Vice President of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights:

Since 1948, the Palestinian Arab people has become a people of refugees, villages including families were torn apart and hundreds of thousands of persons were doomed to live far away from their homeland and their dear ones, according to the laws enacted by Israel since its foundation. In 1967, after the end of the June war and the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Levy Eshkol, who was Prime Minister at that time, said, referring to the Israel occupied areas: "What a wonderful dowry, but the bride ..." The bride, meaning the residents of the areas, were for Eshkol and others a blemish on the beauty of the dowry and they sought to get rid of them. But it was clear that the conditions of 1967 were not like those of 1948. True, forced to leave, three peaceful villages in the Latrun area were destroyed and their inhabitants were evacuated, a warning and "advice" to the Palestinians that they should leave, but they adhered this time to their land and homes, sometimes even to their ruins, and made it clear that they didn't intend to move. However, in the course of the years of occupation, there were some who were forced to wander together with their families, looking for a job far away from home, when they could not make a living due to the Israeli government policy in the areas that prevents every development and which has turned them into a convenient market for Israeli merchandise and an ample source of cheap labour: sometimes under conditions that are intolerable in any advanced society. Those who left the area to earn bread for their families and who for some reason were unable to return after 3 years, lost the right of residence, including this right for their children. But who can cut off the tiesof aman with the homeland where he has grown up, which is his only home? Thus a flow of visits started, and a former Palestinian resident became a visitor, a guestin his homeland, he and his children, but the link with the homeland continued. Many Palestinians have also visited their relatives and old friends in the Arab countries, where the latter had found means of living after having been forced to abandon their homeland, as was said above./

Many hundreds, some say thousands, of married couples of Palestinians resulted from thesemeetings. What all of them have in common is that one of the marriage partners (in most cases the husband) is a resident of the area, while the second partner is a former resident or a son or daughter of a former resident (according to the definition of the military or "civil" administration which rules the occupied territories) but presently is not a resident.

Married persons who are non-residents of the area are allowed to stay in the area with their marriage partners, only by means of a visitor's permit which is extended by the authorities every few months, but the condition for an extension is that the applicant must leave the area, stay for a certain period in the East Bank (Jordan) and afterwards he is allowed to visit the West Bank or the Gaza Strip again, and so on. That is why hundreds of mothers of little children were forced for years to wander and to return, leaving behind them infants with their husbands or risking long journeys with them.

Recently the regulation has made the situation worse, when it was decided that a person who wants to renew his permit must leave the area and stay in the East Bank (Jordan) for six months. Furthermore, every trip of this kind and the high fees it involves, make it a torturous procedure, going on for years. These couples have applied to the military government for a reunion of families, but all their applications were rejected. I have dealt for many years with this problem. which I consider as being one of great importance and as being the expression of a policy to get rid of a large number of Palestinian inhabitants. In some cases the appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice helped, but other cases are still waiting for an answer, after many months.

In the course of my efforts in these painful issues I encountered heartless, insensitive attitudes which have shocked me. I will describe here one characteristic case, which illustrates many other cases:

A BABY UNWANTED IN HIS HOMELAND

His little lips are opened in his sleep, as if he were smiling. The tiny hands, slipping from the sleeves of his blue shirt, are lying motionless at his sides. His round face reflects the tenderness and peacefulness of a human being who has become acquainted with our world only a few months ago.

The mother shifts him from one place to another in my crowded office and he, accustomed to being moved around, does not quiver, in his deep sweet sleep. A little angel, one of those who are depicted in advertisements for all kinds of products.

Experts are unanimous in saying that the face of a beautiful baby rouses emotions and even the sympathy of the toughest man. And so lies this tiny creature in his sleep, and does not let you concentrate on anything else except him, and I approach him from time to time as if hidden thread were attracting me to his perambulator in a deep desire to protect him from the evils of the world.

When he will grow, his parents will surely tell him how special he was in those days, a baby who is unwanted in his homeland even before he is born, an infant whose fate compels him to wander, because of his father's guilt of being a Palestinian.

The story is almost banal and there are thousands like it, untold, unpublished and breathtaking causing helpless pain and anger. The father was born in Gaza which, by order of the occupation, ceased to be a "Strip" and became a "District". The father married a woman who is not a resident of the District and the infant was born of this wedlock. He was born in love and so they wanted to bring him up, in his homeland. They approached the military governor of the District and asked him to allow the mother to stay in the area, with her husband, within the framework of the reunion of families. They heard about the holiness of the family and its integrity according to Jewish law. including the rule in that law that the wife goes after the husband wherever he is, and the right of the children to live with their family.

GOLDA MEIR SHUDDERS ON HEARING OF THE BIRTH OF A PALESTINIAN CHILD

Palestinians probably did not hear of the mother and grandmother, the late Prime Minister Golda Meir, who said how painful it was for her every time she heard about the birth of another Arab baby.

It is a fact that the Palestinians ignore Golda and others, and that they establish families and bear children, also from marriages with people from other areas. What will become of us when we let them live in the District that is reserved for Jewish settlements that are the supreme commandment for us. That is why she, the mother, is not permitted to stay here, except from time to time, according to a visitor's permit, and then she has to leave with the baby in her arms, and if you can't take him with you, let him stay with the father who cannot nurse him, but who cares about such "trifles". Maybe it will teach her and thousands like her that there is nor room here for them, nor for their offspring.

And those who have decided so, have children, and they have dogs and they also like music, and many of them will quote passages from Arab poetry which they have learned at the university from the original texts. They feel insulted and they vehemently protest if somebody compares them with Kahane. They have a "Labour" background, some of them were even members of a kibbutz. They exclude, without a scruple, an Arab infant from the family of man, but they don't like it when things are called by their proper names, because they want to catch two worlds, the tough, cruel world where racism and oppression reign, and th eenlightened world which is disgusted with their deeds.

THE CASE OF BASSAM MOHAMMED MAHMOUD SA'ADA

The case of Bassam Mohammed Mahmoud Sa'ada, who belongs to a second generation of refugees, from the Talooza Refugee camp in the Nablus area, is explained in my application to the authorities as follows: "My client is an inhabitant of theTalooza Refugee camp in the Nablus area and is a bearer of Identity Certificate No. 927315556. On July 17, 1982. he married a resident of the city of Zarqa in Jordan, Majda AH Ahmed Salahat, and the couple has a 9 months old boy.

After the marriage my client continued to live in the area and never left it. On the other hand, his wife was forced to cross constantly between that area and Jordan, because she entered the area on an ordinary visitor's permit that expired on October 16, 1981. My client filed an application no. 11967 on December 22, 1982. It appears from what has been said above that my client's wife was the victim of improper and inefficient handling of the application on the part of the competent persons: although she had given birth to her baby a short time before, she was forced to cross from one side of the Jordan to the other, which made not only her life difficult but also the life of her husband and mainly the life of her infant son who needs uninterrupted care and nursing. I believe that Your Honor will agree with me that this intolerable situation must not be allowed to continue, and therefore I appeal to you to take steps that the application of my client is answered in the affirmative.

THE CASE OF ADEL AHMED SHAHIN OF DAHARIYEH

Adel Ahmed Shahin of Dahariyeh married his cousin Souad who was born in the village on February 12, 1966. A daughter was born to the couple on February 27, 1985. Since their marriage, the wife has made three visits according to regular visitor's permits: in November 1983, February 1984, and in April 1984. Every time she has remained in the area for approximately two months.

I wish to point out that the husband submitted an application for a reunion of families already in the middle of 1983, but this application was rejected without giving any reasons. Nevertheless, he applied again for a reunion of families on May 30, 1984 and this latter request has not yet been answered.

In the meantime, the woman is in Jordan together with her daughter, while the husband lives in Dahariyeh. Moreover, on July 12, 1984, when the woman was trying to enter the area with a visitor's permit, she was prevented from doing so by the authorities on the bridge, who tore up the permit held by her and forced her to return to the East Bank.

THE CASE OF FABIS MAHMOUD BELBISI AND HIS WIFE

In the case of the Belbisi couple I wrote to the authorities as follows:

"My client was born in Rafah in GazaDistrict, Herparents left the area and departed for Libya when she was 4 years old, at the end of 1967, after having been registered in the official population count in the area.

"My client was born in Rafah where he as lived since his birth. Both of my clients belong to the same family. On October 13, 1984 they married in Libya when my client was working there temporarily and on December 12, 1984 he returned to Rafah (accompanied by his wife according to a visitor's permit), and since then he has not left the area, after he found a job. Presently, my client is working as a building worker in Ashkelon (Israel).

"On August 5, 1984 the first son was born to my clients in Rafah and was registered in the father's identity certificate. "The mother, my client, was forced to leave from time to time the area to renew her visitor's permit, a procedure that harms severely the life of the family and their young child. "My clients have submitted twice applications for a reunion of the family (nos. 1972 and 1012), both applications were rejected. The last application was refused on August 1, 1984. The validity of my client's visitor's permit expires on August 12, 1984.

"We see that the application has a clearly humanitarian character. It is a matter of integrity of the basic cell of the family which has no other home but that in the area which is the only center of their life.

"The application of my clients conforms also with the customary criteria for the approval of the family reunion in Judea and Samaria, as decided by the Supreme Court of Justice and also by the experience of their life in the last years, without harming anybody."

THE CASE OF MUSTAFA BURBAR AND HIS WIFE OF THE GAZA STRIP

The case of Burbar and his wife refers to a couple who married on February 17, 1983 (they are relatives). The wife is a daughter of a Palestinian from Gaza who became a resident of Syria. A baby was born to the couple at the time of the wife's visit to'the area. The hardships of the couple and especially of the wife are specified in my appeal as follows:

"The wife entered the area for the first time on June 30. 1983 according to a visitor's permit. Its validity wasextended until October 15,1983 when she was forced to leave the area to be able to return according to a visitor's permit, and she returned indeed on October 30, 1983. My client was allowed to stay in the area until June 1, 1984 because she was in the last months of her pregnancy and because she had to nurse the baby. However, the considerate attitude toward the infant was limited, because on June 6, 1984 the couple were forced to leave the area together with the three month old baby. Moreover, the wife was forced to wait for over two months in Jordan until she got a visitor's permit and was allowed to enter the area on August 6, 1984 after her husband returned earlier to Gaza with the infant.

"Here, apparently, the lenient treatment of the infant ended, because she had to leave the area and wait in Jordan six months till she wouldbe allowed toget amonthly visitor's permit, and all this ignoring the fact that the 8 months old child needs still the care of his mother who has no relatives in Jordan where she could stay for such a long time.

"My client submitted, in the name of his wife, an application for a reunion of families on April 7, 1983 and on January 1, 1984 he received from the civilian administration a notification refusing his request without giving any reasons.

"Let me point out that my client lost her Syrian citizenship following her marriage with a foreign resident, that she has joined him, and now she is registered in her husband's passport. These are the facts from which it is clear that this is apurely humanitarian matter. The refusal of therequest of my client to reunite with his wife in the area means the ruin of the young family, not to speak of the fact that the decision contradicts the norms of international law that recognizes the right of every person to establish a family according to his own choice.

"Furthermore, forcing the woman to leave her family in a few days time, harms seriously the infant who still needs the close care of his mother without whom his health and even his life are in danger. In my opinion, the disregard of the civilian administration officer for the requirements of the child and his merciless approach, are incompatible with the conventions for the protection of children everywhere, irrespective of their nationality and religion."

THE CASE OF HAJAR AHMED MOHAMMED AL-HAJ

Hajar Ahmed Mohammed Al-Haj, a widow, mother of ten children. Her complaint to the Supreme Court of Justice, which I submitted in her name on December 12, 1978 (File 884/78), describes the situation of this family, in particular of the mother (the first plaintiff in the complaint) and of her ten children who were born in Columbia where the parents lived for years, as follows:

"In 1976, the husband of plaintiff no. 1 died (the father of all the children, as mentioned in the complaint). The plaintiff was left without support, while in the area here, in the village where she was born, her brother Ahmed Mohammed Abu al-Haj (hereafter 'the brother') is living, as well as her brotherin- law (brother of her late husband Hussein Abd el-Kadr), who are ready to extend her mental and economic aid, so that she could remain here and not be abandoned in a foreign land. She brought the body of her husband to be buried here. Plaintiff no. 1 arrived through the bridge from Amman according to a visitor's permit, and her children came by air.

''In the light of what was said above, the family, together with the brother and brother in law of the Plaintiff, decided to submit an application for the reunion of families, so that Plaintiff no. 1 and her children could live permanently in the village of Kubar, as mentioned.

'As it is impossible to submit one application for more than seven persons, two applications were made, one in the name of the brother and the second in the name of the brother in law.

"The Plaintiff got no answer till the end of 1976, but she expected a positive reply and remained in the area also after her visitor's permit expired.

'On December 8, 1976 she was invited together with the mukhtar and with her brother-in-law to the military governor of Ramallah and she was told that she had to leave the area immediately, and that her permit would not be extended and that her reunion with the family is rejected. After she stayed two weeks in Amman, the Plaintiff asked again for a visitor's permit. The permit was granted and she came to the area in December 1977.

"After her return she submitted again a request for a reunion of families, that was not approved up to the present. The Plaintiff used to stay two months in the area, was forced to return for one month to Amman and returned again on a visitor's permit.

"In May 1978 the Plaintiff made another request for reunion of the family, upon the suggestion of the military government. This application too, met with no response yet. "In October 1984 the Plaintiff asked to renew her visitor's permit, pointing out that she cannot return to Amman every time, because she has neither relatives nor acquaintances there, and she was forced to ask the local police to arrange a place for her to sleep.

'The authorities refused to renew the Plaintiff's permit whose validity expired on October 15, 1978. Since then she lives in the fear of a deportation that can be carried out any moment, a situation that affects severely also her children who, she is afraid, may be deponed too.

"Two daughters of the Plaintiff study since 1977 at an orphanage in Jerusalem, the others study at Bir Zeit College, and they, too, are asking to stay in the area with their mother. Let me point out that they needed no visitor's permit because they have Colombian passports."

The Supreme Court of Justice issued an interim order that forbids the deportation of Hajar from the area and the representative of the State reached acompromise with the Plaintiff: accordingly her permit to stay in the area will be extended till April 1980, and then her case will be reconsidered.

However, since 1980 till the writing of the report, the matter of Hajar and her children has not been settled, she is neither deported, nor is she granted an identity certificate, a situation which causes great suffering to her and her children who have grown up in the meantime, but still have no legal status like their mother.

Recently the authorities have tried to recruit those who are refused reunion with their families, for collaboration with the Security Services. Many of my clients complain that they were invited to the military governor, where "responsible persons," security men, told them that if they cooperate they could be allowed a reunion of families.

In fact, all the above cases speak for themselves. The applications for a reunion of families have not yet been approved and we are working hard to help these poor people. The assistant in my office, Ahmed Nazal and myself, search sometimes for days for the persons in charge of these issues with the legal advisors in the West Bank and Gaza. Many times we have felt an impenetrable wall facing us, and once I was even told frankly by the official in charge at the legal adviser office in Gaza: "They marry, bear children, want to remain in the area, so that we shall have to solve the Palestinian problem here. They have enough Arab countries for this purpose....''

I shall not quote here my answer in which I expressed my anger and disgust at these words. This time the man in charge was deterred and we temporarily saved the victim from being sent outside the area, but who knows for how long. In any case, we shall not give up the demands for a reunion of families, exposing the hypocrisy and double standards of those who demand what they are not prepared to grant to another people. The material brought here, describing the painful problem, proves it.

Lawyers like Felicia Langer who try to help their clients in the face of the travesty of law that passes forjustice in Israel face obstacles that would seem incredible to lawyers practicing in civilized countries. It is a paradox that Jewish lawyers The Inhuman Separation of Palestinian Families in many countries have made important contributions to objective principles of International Law and Human Rights, while many of those in Israel make a mockery of these same principles.

The United States, which was conceived in, and is dedicated to, the principles of self-determination of peoples and individual liberty, is aiding and abetting the Israelis with political, military and financial aid, while at the same time the Israeli government is persecuting United States citizens of Palestinian background by preventing their family reunification.

U.S. ASKED TO ISSUE TRAVEL ADVISORY FOR ISRAEL

The U.S. government may soon issue a travel advisory to Americans coming to Israel, Al-Fajr has learned.

Well informed sources told Al-Fajr that the American Consulate in Jerusalem has asked the U.S. State Department to issue this travel advisory in light of increased Israeli harassment of American citizens of Arab descent and of black Americans entering through Tel Aviv airport and the Allenby bridge. No decision has yet been taken on this request. A consulate spokesperson did not deny the report. He said to Al-Fajr "I cannot confirm the travel advisory."

If a travel advisory is issued, Americans planning to go to Israel will be warned against making the trip. This will mean a severe cut back on tourism and other foreign businesses. A similar advisory was issued against Greece last year because of what was termed then "a lack of airport security."

Abdeen Jabara, president of the U.S.-based American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said his organization last week requested the issuance of this travel advisory. He said he met with Richard Murphy, assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs in Washington, to protest Israeli harassment of Palestinian-Americans entering Tel Aviv airport. Jabara is currently in the West Bank for a few days' tour.

According to official U.S. Consulate reports, there are already more than 12 cases this summer in which Palestinian-Americans have been harassed at Tel Aviv airport. The number is believed to be much higher, as many fail to file complaints with the consulate.

Harassments have included confiscating visitors' American passports; posting bonds amounting to hundreds of U.S. dollars as a guarantee that visitors will leave the country as scheduled; holding the visitor's return tickets until their day of departure, restricting duration of stay to several days @on-Palestinian Americans get a three-month tourist visa upon entry); and in one extreme case, turning the visitor back.

In one case, a Palestinian-American family coming to visit relatives in the West Bank was turned back after being kept at Tel Aviv airport for 12 hours. The five-person family was refused contact with American officials while here and was put on a plane to the U.S. the next morning.

In another case. a Palestinian-American woman was also refused entry until her uncle, who lives in the West Bank town of el-Bireh, posted bond for her and guaranteed that his visitor would leave the country.

A U.S. Consulate spokesperson said that when someone files a complaint of harassment, consular officials raise the issue with the Israeli foreign ministry and report it to the U.S. State Department. "We can't put up with that," the spokesperson said, referring to Israeli harassment of American citizens.

Israeli harassment of Palestinian-Americans has been reported over the past several years. The harassment clearly violates a 1952 American-Israeli agreement which allows facilitation of movement for citizens of both countries.(10)

Subsequently, the U.S. Department of State issued a formal Travel Advisory for Israel.

Israeli actions impeding family contacts and family reunification are flagrant abuses of fundamental Human Rights.

For many years the United States has utilized the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to deny Most Favored Nation Tariff treatment for imports from the U.S.S.R. on the basis of Soviet policies related to family reunification.

From the above-mentioned cases it is evident that the United States would have greater justification in applying the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to Israel.

Section 409 of the Trade Act of 1974 reads:

To assure the continued dedication of the United States to the fundamental Human Rights and welfare of its own citizens ... no country shall participate in credits, credit guarantees or investment guarantees nor have a commercial agreement concluded with it if said country:

(1) denies its citizens the right or opportunity to join permanently through emigration, a very close relative in the United States, such as a spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister."' (11)

Although the application of these sections in the Trade Act of 1974 was limited within the Statute to countries involved in East-West Trade, the principle of Human Rights within these sections is universal, and Israel deliberately denies Palestinians the fundamental Human Right of family reunification.

Therefore, it is imperative that sanctions, such as those described in the U.S. Jackson-Vanik Amendment, be imposed on the Zionist regime to force immediate rectification of this inhuman treatment of Palestinian families.

These cases would greatly benefit from immediate and compassionate action by the nations of the world, and most particularly by the United States of America, which is a party to the Helsinki Declaration for the unification of families and which is, unfortunately, aiding and abetting Israel in committing these crimes against humanity.

NOTES TO CHAPTER TWENTY SEVEN

1. The Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Part 2, August 1, 1975, Helsinki, Finland. 2. Al Fajr, February 6, 1987, p. 9.

3. l, May 28, 1988.

4. Mikhail S. Gorbachev, l(New York: Paperbacks, Ltd., 1987), pp. 89-90.

5. Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin, volume 66, No. 93, May 24, 1988, p. 1.

6. Knesset Record, November 22, 1949, volume 3, p. 144.

7. Al-Fajr, February 6, 1987, p. 8-9.

8. Al-Fajr, February 13, 1987.

9. Joel Greenberg, "Long Division," The Jerusalem Post Magazine, February 6, 1987, pp. 8-9.

10. Maher Abukhater, Al Fajr, July 11, 1987.

11. Public Law 93-618-January 3, 1975, Title IV-Trade Relations With Countries Not Currently Receiving Nondiscriminatory Treatment, Section 409, Freedom to Emigrate to Join a Very Close Relative in the United States.