Resettlement as a possible political solution to the Palestine
refugee prob¬lem has resurfaced in the peace process
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems, indeed,
that the only solution Israel envisions for the refugees is their
resettlement or integration into other Arab countries. This
proposal, echoed by other Western states and bodies, is an
indication that, in their perception, the problem is an economic
one. Such a solution, which entailed a permanent resettlement in
host countries and the abandonment of hope of repatriation, has
been rejected by Palestinians since the early 1950s.
Resettlement in the classic sense means integration and full
participa¬tion in the social and economic life of the host
society. It is one of three durable solutions to refugee problems.
The other two are repatriation to the original homeland, and
resettlement which "involves moving refugees from their country of
first asylum to a third country" (Stein, 1983).
Accordingly, Israel's call for resettling Palestinian refugees as a
durable solution, relates to only two of the forms of resettlement.
The first one applies to Palestinian refugees in host countries
since 1948 to date; the second con¬cerns Palestinian refugees
in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after 1967, whom Israel wishes to
see outside the borders of Palestine, in a third country.
Intensive discussion of the refugee issue started in the aftermath
of the 1967 war at ministerial level in Israel. It was Yigal Allon
(a prominent Labor Party leader and Cabinet member) who, in July
1967, was the first to suggest a "solution" to the refugee problem
by resettling Gaza Strip refugees in the West Bank and Al-Arish
(Zaru, 1991). In fact, the Galilee Document of the late 1960s,
titled "Rehabilitation of Refugees and Development in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip," was the first to suggest the allocation of funds
for a four-year plan for development and rehabilitation of
refugees. The basis of this plan was to effect changes in the
living con¬ditions of the refugees (by setting up new housing
projects outside the camps and the renovation of camps), as well as
the integration of refugees within the nearby towns, to be under
municipal responsibility (Davar, August 16, 1973; Karawan,
1973).
The first concrete steps were taken in May 1970 when Shimon Peres
set up a secret trust fund (Trust Fund for the Economic Development
and Rehabilitation of Refugees) for this purpose. Peres hoped that,
through the resettlement of Gaza refugees, the military government
could replace UNRWA's work (The Jerusalem Post, September
22, 1971). The trust was secret because, in Peres' words, "the
chance of success is in inverse proportion to the amount of
publicity" (The Observer, August 1, 1971). The funds were
spent without revealing the ultimate political goal of resettlement
(ibid.).
The only sources available on the resettlement of refugees in the
Gaza Strip are those of UNRWA, according to which two types of
resettlement took place: the first involved the Israeli authorities
offering the refugees housing units; and the second involved plots
of land.
The first project to be established within the context of the first
type was the "Canada Camp" before 1973. This project is a unique
case because it was left in Egypt after the Israeli withdrawal from
the Sinai Peninsula in 1982 as part of the original Camp David
Accords between Israel and Egypt. In June 1985, the Egyptian
government and the Israeli authorities agreed on a gradual return
to the Gaza Strip of the refugees stranded in the Canada Camp
project.
The other housing projects were:
1. The Shuqeiri Project in Khan Yunis, which commenced in March
1973; by June 1989 it had 135 families (848 persons) in 128
houses.
2. The Brazilian project in Rafah, started in April 1973; in June
1989 it had 436 families (2,820) persons in 422 houses.
3. The Sheikh Radwan project in Gaza City, commenced in March 1974;
it had 790 families (5,029 persons) in 806 houses.
4. AI-Amal project in Khan Yunis, commenced in May 1979; it had 802
families (4,853 persons) in 842 houses.
In all, by June 1989, the number of houses reached 2,686, housing
3,054 families or 18,920 persons.
The second type of project involved the allocation of plots of land
which started in September 1974. The initial size of each plot was
250 sq. m., subsequently reduced to 125 sq. m. In 1977, the Israeli
authorities jus¬tified this reduction to shortage of land
suitable for building purposes. However, this justification has to
be examined against the authorities' pol¬icy to pave the way
for future projected expansion of Jewish settlements in the Strip
(UNRWA, 1989). In all, 6,642 plots of land were allocated, of which
250 were under construction. The project involved 5,428 houses and
6,905 families (ibid.).
The Military-Political Aspects of Resettlement
Israeli measures to resettle Gaza Strip refugees, which started in
the early 1970s, do not conform with their humanitarian claims to
improve the living conditions of refugees. These Israeli measures
can instead be seen as an integral part of modern
counter-insurgency doctrines promoted by security considerations in
response to revolutionary guerrilla warfare or insurgency.
The Malayan "new villages," the "strategic hamlets" in Vietnam, the
"aldeamentos" in Angola, and the "douars" in Algeria are just a few
exam¬ples from resettlement history. They are resettlements
carried out by Britain, the United States, Portugal and France
respectively, within the framework of a counter-insurgency strategy
(McCuen, 1966; Beckett and Pimlott, 1985).
In the context of counter-insurgency strategy, resettlement is
perceived as being part of a "civic action" to counter-organize the
population after the destruction of a guerrilla organization. It is
a policy that follows the French concept, which emphasizes that
"destruction must be followed by construction" (McCuen, 1966). The
aim of initiating resettlement programs is to regain the confidence
of the population through developing the con¬vincing "hearts
and minds" policy. To achieve such a goal, "civic action" projects
designed to improve the material conditions are a requirement which
imply pacification policies:
Resettlement of sections of the population is another form sought
by colonial regimes or governments to sever the links between the
insur¬gents and the populace ... particularly when terror
and/or guerrilla attacks persist and are attributed, at least
partially, to support rendered the insurgents by portions of the
populace. Civic action and political organization are extremely
important during resettlement, indeed, they are often viewed as
concomitant of that technique (O'Neill, 1978).
This kind of analysis highlights the real motives behind the
Israeli refugee resettlement schemes in the Gaza Strip. (By June
1989, the number of Israeli-sponsored resettlement schemes in the
Gaza Strip reached nine projects, and not a single project has been
built since then.) These resettle¬ment schemes were set up
after the crackdown on the Fedayeen (freedom fighters) in 1971,
through Ariel Sharon's (then head of the Southern Command in the
Gaza Strip) road-widening operations in the large camps in the
Strip. These operations affected three large camps: Jabalia,
Al-Shati' and Rafah. The destruction of shelters started in 1971
and, according to UNRWA statistics, 10,794 rooms were demolished,
affecting 3,941 families (24,067 persons) (UNRWA, 1991). The
Jerusalem Post gives the figure at 1,807 rooms (August 31,
1971).
The Israeli military authorities' crackdown on these large camps in
the Gaza Strip was carried out with security in mind. It enabled
them to exer¬cise more control on camp populations, and to
disperse refugees. The long-¬term objectives were the
liquidation of the refugee camps and the refugees as a category,
which forms the core of the Palestinian question, and, in the long
run, to attempt to promote the Israeli resettlement schemes.
The Israeli authorities' plan for improving the living conditions
of refugees through "economic development" and resettlement (the
carrot of their policies) aimed at isolating "the Fedayeen
from the rest of the citizen¬ry" (O'Neill, 1978). What the
authorities did not realize then was that the strength of the
Fedayeen carne from among the local population
¬refugees and non-refugees - a fact which led the Israeli
press to question the effectiveness of the Israeli policy in Gaza
Strip camps: "It is impossible to separate the Fedayeen from
the locals, for the locals themselves are potential Fedayeen"
(Ha' olam Hazeh, August 3, 1971), in contrast to the West Bank
where the insurgents were infiltrators rather than part of the
local population (O'Neill, 1978).
While it can be argued that a certain measure of success has been
obtained in the adoption of the military requirements of
counter-insur¬gency, the Israeli authorities were less able to
develop a convincing "hearts and minds" policy to win the support
of Gazan refugees as a whole. The security measures adopted by the
authorities did not deter refugees from giving support to the
national struggle; indeed, if anything, they con¬tributed to
the enhancement of the refugees' political identity. Nor did the
resettlement schemes fulfill an Israeli wish to depopulate the
camps, for those who moved out constituted only 18.4 percent of the
total refugee community in the Strip (Al-Ittihad, December
9, 1988). Moreover, the number of relocated refugees hardly exceeds
the number by which the refugee population grows every year through
natural increase.
The Israeli strategy for the refugee resettlement schemes in the
Gaza Strip reflects a belief that most political problems can be
reduced to social and economic problems. Hence, the Israeli
authorities' shock at the relo¬cated refugees' role in the
Intifada. In some instances, confrontations with the Israeli forces
exceeded those in the camps, even though the Sheikh Radwan
resettlement scheme was called Kfar Shalom (the Village of
Peace) for the calm that had reigned there prior to the
Intifada.
The resettled refugees' involvement in the national struggle on an
equal footing with camp refugees proved that refugees in
resettlement projects were not isolated from the residents of other
camps (author's sample sur¬vey), despite the fact that the
infrastructure of resettlement projects has been set up with a
counter-insurgency in mind. For example, wide roads, in contrast to
the narrow alleys in refugee camps, were meant to facilitate
control by military forces, in addition to the careful screening of
refugees prior to admission into the schemes.
Conclusion
The experience of resettling Gaza refugees has challenged the
Israeli authorities' belief that through relocation,
"urbanization," or "depeasanti¬zation," the refugees' numbers,
and thus resistance, would decline. The Israeli authorities ignored
the fact that the refugee population in the Strip had become
politicized. The unique character of Gaza Strip refugees, who felt
the burden of Occupation more than any other areas of Palestinian
refugee concentration, and the role of the Israeli control in
sharpening and consolidating their collective cultural and
political identity, enabled those refugees to hold their ground in
the face of attacks during the Intifada.
More importantly, the Israeli authorities ignored the fact that
"improv¬ing housing conditions" has never been an alternative
to a political solu¬tion, nor a means to thwarting resistance,
for as the historical experience of Palestinian refugees shows,
repression escalates resistance, regardless of residential
location. This theory is affirmed by the relocated refugees in the
Sheikh Radwan resettlement scheme, 95.6 percent of whom believe
that their conception of and contribution to the national struggle
is as strong as it was prior to relocation (author's
research).
Thus, the refugees' adherence to their political rights contrasts
sharply with the Israeli assumption that the resettlement of
refugees in the Gaza Strip will dissipate the dream of return, an
assumption epitomized by Moshe Dayan's (then defense minister)
statement of June 1973, "As long as the refugees remain in their
camps ... their children will say they come from Jaffa or Haifa; if
they move out of the camps, the hope is they will feel an
attachment to their new land" (The Jerusalem Post, June 13,
1973).
Bibliography
1. Beckett, Ian and John Pimlott (eds.). Armed Forces and Modern
Counterinsurgency. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985.
2. Karawan, Ibrahim. Israel's Expansion: An Overview and Analysis
of Israeli Peace Proposals, June 1967-0ctober 1973 (Arabic). Cairo:
AI-Ahram, The Political and Strategic Studies Center, 1973.
3. Masriyeh, Norma. The Resettlement of Palestinian Refugees in the
Gaza Strip.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, the University of Leeds, July 1994.
4. McCuen, John. The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, the Strategy
of Counter¬ Insurgency. London: Faber and Faber, 1966.
5. O'Neill, Bond. Armed Struggle in Palestine: A Political Military
Analysis. Boulder: Westview Press, 1978.
6. Stein, Barry. "The Commitment of Refugee Resettlement." ANNALS,
Vol. 467, May 1983, 187-201.
7. UNRWA. Registration Statistical Bulletin for the Fourth Quarter
1989 and 1990. Vienna: UNRWA, Relief Services Division, January
1991.
8. Zaru, Nawaf. "The Israeli Projects to Eliminate Palestinian
Refugee Camps." Samed AI-Iqtisadi, No. 83, January/February/March,
1991 (Arabic).