Plo or Not?

Basically the pro-P.L.O. group felt that what is needed to solve the Middle East conflict is "establishment of a democratic secular state in the whole of the Palestine area" and the pro-zionist group felt that this could not work because of the conflict of culture between the Palestinians and the Jews and because it had been expressly stated in the P.L.O. Constitution that the Palestinians would not consent to occupy the land that is now Israel while the Jews are still living there.

Part (a) of the motion was then put and passed to be followed by the substantial loss of Part (b). Then the most controversial area of the motion, Part (c), came up and was promptly drowned in a sea of amendments;

Moved Norman/Richardson. "That this association supports the right of the Palestine people to achieve self-government in the form they wish it, that is, a democratic state and that this association accept this principle to be the right of all races and ethnic groups in the world.

Moved Addley/Underwood.' That the Palestine people have the right to self-determination.

All were lost finally. The foreshadowed motion of Andy Moore-Jones to reaffirm previous S.R.C. policy was discussed and described as "the most equitable way" by Steve Underwood and as a "compromise motion" by Bruce Robinson because he felt that "there was no possibility of dialogue during a state of war" even though this seemed to be in direct contradiction of his motion to have a state where the people would not only have to speak together but to live together.