The issue of the Palestinian refugee problem has again risen to the
forefront of public interest and debate concerning finding a just
and lasting resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict,
particularly in light of the Saudi Arabian initiative which was
adopted on March 28, 2002, by the summit meeting of the Council of
the League of Arab States at its 14th Ordinary Session in Beirut.
This proposal, which is now official Arab League policy, provided a
formulation in paragraph 2.b, for; "The achievement of a just
solution to the Palestine refugee problem to be agreed upon in
accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194". It also
included the wording in paragraph 3.a. "Consider the Arab-Israeli
conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and
provide security for all the states of the region". Israel Foreign
Minister, Shimon Peres, has already stated that these proposals as
a whole are worthy of serious consideration and provide a basis for
negotiations to end the conflict.
Rejecting the Right of Return
There have been many Palestinians and some Israelis who have
criticized the newspaper advert1 by Amos Oz and other Israeli
left-wing and peace camp writers and intellectuals who totally
rejected the idea of the "Right of Return". In that advert
addressed to "The Palestinian Leadership," over 30 leading Israeli
peace activists, intellectuals and politicians announced publicly
that "we shall never be able to agree to the return of the refugees
to within the borders of Israel, for the meaning of such a return
would be the elimination of the State of Israel". While supporting
family reunions, these Israeli peace camp leaders, who have for 30
years supported "a two-state solution" and "the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination", wrote that a "massive
return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel would conflict with
the right to self-determination of the Jewish people".
Palestinians claim that Oz and the Israeli peace camp do not
appreciate the depth of Palestinian feelings, commitment and need
on this issue. Those critics miss the point of the succinct
statement made by the best minds and most articulate and
politically wise spokesmen of the Israel peace camp-the main, or
perhaps the only remaining constituency for peace in Israel.
Those writers and intellectuals know that no government in Israel,
even a totally peace-oriented government can accept the fulfillment
of the "Right of Return" or any of its variants which would involve
one way or another opening the gates of Israel to millions or even
hundreds of thousand of Palestinian refugees. If such a commitment
were included in a peace agreement brought before the Israeli
public, in a plebiscite, it would have no chance of passing,
despite the fact that the majority of the Israeli public are still
ready for major and meaningful compromises for peace leading to the
establishment of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.
Even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expressed his support for the
establishment of a Palestinian State in a speech made in September
2001.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis from left to right perceive
the "Right of Return" of millions or even hundreds of thousands of
Palestinian refugees as a direct existential threat to the survival
of Israel as the Jewish homeland. This is even more true today, as
a result of the vitriolic hate campaign against all Israelis, not
just settlers, spewed forth by official Palestinian Authority
spokesmen, the press, electronic media and in schools, as well as
the acts of terrorism against innocent civilians in Israel
including women, teenagers, school children and infants.
Despite all this, most of the Israeli public still accepts the idea
of a two state solution involving the creation of a Palestinian
State, but cannot accept the Palestinian demand that they have the
right to take over Israel as well by inundating it with Palestinian
refugees.
Retelling the Historical Narrative
In the last words of the book The Palestinian Exodus 1948-19882,
Rashid Khalidi writes; "Working from the South African model, it is
clear that we need truth, justice and, finally, reconciliation. We
need truth so that the harm done in 1948 can be acknowledged by all
concerned, which means facing history honestly, acceptance of
responsibility by those responsible or their successors, and solemn
atonement for what was done 50 years ago. We need truth also in
order to clarify the limits of what can be done to right that
injustice without causing further harm. Once these have been
established, it should be possible to work toward attainable
justice and therefore toward reconciliation. This is essential
because our ultimate objective should be to end this conflict for
good, which can only come from true reconciliation, based on truth
and justice".
Responsibility and Remorse
In depth, well documented, historical studies by Dr Benny Morris3
of Israel, indicate that Israel is not free of partial
responsibility for the problems of the Palestinian displaced
persons and refugees. Local army commanders and irregulars expelled
and deported Palestinians in some cases and the Government of
Israel refused to accept the return of most of the Palestinian
displaced persons and refugees after the war since they were viewed
by Israel as a hostile enemy people who tried to conquer and
annihilate Israel at its very inception.
In light of the above analysis I have come to the conclusion that
nevertheless, Israel can and should state clearly and openly its
sorrow, deep remorse and regrets for its part, minor though it was,
in the terrible tragedy that the befell the Palestinian refugees as
a result of the 1948 war and the years of severe suffering and
deprivations that they have gone through ever since. Ways must be
found for the final resettlement of those refugees, still in camps,
in permanent homes and just compensation for all refugees for their
losses and suffering. Israel should carry its share and participate
actively in promoting that effort.
The Palestinian leadership shares a heavy responsibility as well,
since it too insisted that the refugees remain in the overcrowded
and unsanitary camps and rejected every offer of resettlement. They
preferred to use the suffering of refugees as leverage in their
political negotiations. They never have accepted their heavy
responsibility for bringing upon themselves and the Palestinian
people the "Nakba", or prepared themselves or the refugees for a
realistic acceptance of the reality that there never can be a
"return" in the practical, physical sense of the term. Just the
opposite, over the years they continuously fanned the flames.
Today the only honest and just solution is for there to be two
states, side by side, living in peace, mutual respect and
cooperating with each other in all areas. The Palestinian State
must be the dedicated Palestinian homeland to which its refugees
can return and the State of Israel must remain the dedicated Jewish
homeland to which Jewish refugees can return. Israel must be
prepared to absorb at least an additional million refugees who may
be compelled to leave the former Soviet Union and other countries
because of oppression, discrimination and anti-Semitism. Israel is
their only homeland, their only hope for refuge.
The Arab host countries can and must now play a major role in the
resettlement and rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees,
together with the nations of the world who have made generous
humane offers to help. Israel also can and should reach an
agreement with the Palestinian leadership on the step-wise return
of limited numbers of refugees based on humanitarian and family
unification considerations.
The time has come to end the armed struggle between Palestinians
and Israelis and create a legitimate and viable Palestinian State
in the West Bank and Gaza within the 1967 borders, with some
mutually agreed modifications. This is the solution that the
Palestinians themselves missed out on by their inability to accept
the historic two state compromise of partition in 1948 sanctioned
by the international legitimacy of the decision of the UN. It is in
that Palestinian State that the refugees can finally find a home if
they so choose. It is important to note that a distinguished
Palestinian leader and intellectual, Professor Sari Nusseibeh,
President of Al Quds University and Chairman Yassar Arafat's
official representative in Jerusalem said in a published interview5
that the Palestinian refugees should be resettled in the future
Palestinian State, and "... not in a way that would undermine the
existence of the State of Israel as a predominately Jewish State
... Otherwise what does a two-state solution mean?" The Arab
League's Beirut proposal of March 2002, based on the Saudi Arabian
initiative, also calls for a solution of the Palestinian refugee
problem based on a "just solution ... agreed upon" between the
sides with no reference to the "Right of Return".
Lessons from the Past
The time has come to fulfill the words of Professor Khalidi and
face history honestly and accept responsibility, since we need
truth in order to clarify the limit of what can be done to right
the injustices of the past without causing further harm. It will
take some time and a painful reassessment for both sides to accept
this, but in my mind the only historically just and moral way out
of this dilemma is a joint Palestinian-Israeli statement of shared
remorse and regret for the tragedy of the Palestinian displaced
persons and refugees with a public declaration of acceptance of
shared responsibility for the transgressions of the past. In
accepting this there must be recognition that the only just and
realistic solution today is the creation of an independent
Palestinian State, which will be the dedicated homeland of the
Palestinian people living side by side in peace with the State of
Israel, the dedicated homeland of the Jewish people. There must be
a clear public acceptance of the reality that it is now impossible
to turn back the hands of the clock of history and that there can
be no "return".
In light of the tragic deterioration in relations between Israelis
and Palestinians, the escalating armed violence, ruthless and
inhumane terrorist acts aimed purposely against innocent civilians
and the violent response to such acts, there is good reason to
believe there will be renewed forceful international initiatives to
bring pressure to bear on both the Israeli and Palestinian
leadership to end the futile armed struggle and bloodshed and
finally resolve the conflicts between our two peoples in the spirit
of realistic, pragmatic and painful compromises on both sides.
Hopefully the day will come, in the not too distant future when the
Palestinians will once again have an opportunity to negotiate a
full and final peace agreement with Israel. The Saudi Arabian/Arab
League initiative coupled with the Clinton bridging formulations at
Taba may very well provide just such a basis for renewed
negotiations for achieving a just and lasting peace. However,
negotiations will have no chance of a fair start if the
Palestinians insist on the "Right of Return" as a precondition. If
they do so, I fear, they will bring upon themselves another tragedy
as a result of their inability to realize that the time has come to
accept in the name of all Palestinians, a realistic concluding
solution to the refugee question that will not negate the principle
of the two state solution: Israel as the dedicated Jewish homeland
and a Palestinian State as the dedicated Palestinian homeland,
living side by side, in peace.
1. Ha'aretz-January 2, 2001þ
2.The Palestinian Exodus 1948-1988 edited by G. Karmi & E.
Cotran, Ithaca Press. 1999.
3.Morris, B. (1988) The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem
1947-1949, Cambridge Press
4. Karsh, E. (2001) "The Palestinians and the Right of Return"
Commentary, 111:25-31,
5. Nusseibeh, S. 2001, interview by Dan Perry of the Associated
Press, reported on in The Washington Times, October 24, 2001
<