Akram and Rempel add: The cessation of the UNCCP’s protection function triggers the alternative regime under Article 1D, and the Refugee Convention and all its guarantees towards refugees are fully applicable to the Palestinian refugees as well.375 In short, Akram and Rempel argue that the drafters of the 1951 Refugee Convention intended the word “protection” in Article 1D to refer to UNCCP and, hence, the language “protection or assistance” in Article 1D refers to UNCCP as providing protection and UNRWA as providing assistance. This interpretation is based on several arguments. First, the plain language of Article 1D, i.e., “organs or agencies of the United Nations” in the plural, indicates that the drafters referred to more than one United Nations organ or agency which provided those benefits and contemplated that such protection or assistance might cease in the foreseeable future for reasons which were unknown at that time (28 July 1951). Second, the drafters of the 1951 Refugee Convention knew that there were two agencies of the United Nations other than UNHCR mandated to provide protection or assistance to Palestinian refugees and that the distinction between protection and assistance was clearly delineated between the two agencies. Both agencies, the UNCCP and UNRWA, were established to provide separate, yet complementary services to Palestine Refugees. Third, the travaux préparatoires show that for the drafters of the 1951 Refugee Convention, protection, rather than assistance, was the critical and necessary ongoing requirement: their main concern was the continuation of international protection.376 Moreover, UNRWA assistance and UNCCP protection activities are alternatives, so that either cessation of UNCCP protection or UNRWA assistance will trigger applicability of the inclusion clause and the benefits of the 1951 Refugee Convention for Palestinian refugees. Since UNCCP ceased to provide effective protection in 1952, this cessation of protection is the single crucial event that triggered the 375 376 72 Ibid., 67. The emphasis on protection is visible in the speech of Mr. Mostafa Bey, the then-UN representative of Egypt, the very country which suggested to amend the 1951 Convention by adding a second paragraph (the inclusion clause) to Article 1D: “Introducing his amendment (A/CONF.2/13) [the inclusion clause], [Mr. Bey] said that the aim of his delegation at the present juncture was to grant to all refugees the status for which the Convention provided. To withhold the benefits of the Convention from certain categories of refugee would be to create a class of human beings who would enjoy no protection at all [emphasis added].[…] The limiting clause [the exclusion clause] contained in paragraph C [later, paragraph D] of article 1 of the Convention at present covered Arab refugees from Palestine. From the Egyptian Government's point of view it was clear that so long as United Nations institutions and organs cared for such refugees their protection would be a matter for the United Nations alone [emphasis added]. However, when that aid came to an end the question would arise of how their continued protection was to be ensured [emphasis added]. It would only be natural to extend the benefits of the Convention to them; hence the introduction of the Egyptian amendment. UN General Assembly, “Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting, 26 November 1951,” November 26, 1951, http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68cda4.html. Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees