THE PALESTINIANS' CLAIM This Briefing describes the Palestinian claim to a “right of return”, and sets out 7 arguments against it. The claim runs like this:-
Rather, they demand that all refugees (over 3.8 million – see below) should as a matter of principle be granted a ‘right of return' to Israel , to the land from which they were supposedly dispossessed. It is irrelevant how many Palestinians would actually do so; Israel must as a matter of “justice” agree to their right to do so. While Palestinian commentators suggest from time to time that the Palestinian leadership may be willing to compromise on this, its official position remains to require a ‘right of return' without conditions. At the Taba talks in 2001, the Palestinians stated, and the Arab states echoed this, that the unconditional ‘right of return' was a “sacred right” of the Palestinian people (see Beyond Images Briefing 21: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?). This was a key reason for the collapse of talks in 2000-1. ISRAEL 'S KEY ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ‘RIGHT OF RETURN' Here are seven key Israeli arguments against the ‘right of return' demand (each is expanded upon below):- 1. Arab rejectionism, not Israeli aggression, caused the war in 1948 which created the refugee problem 2. Israel did not expel the Palestinian people during the 1948 war 3. Arab states and the Palestinians have exacerbated the refugee problem for over 50 years. A general ‘right of return' is more unrealistic than ever 4. Israel is under no legal obligation under UN Resolution 194 to grant the Palestinians a general ‘right of return' into Israel . 5. For Israel to accept a Palestinian ‘right of return' would risk destroying the Jewish character of the State of Israel, which the Israeli leadership and population will never accept 6. Granting the Palestinians a ‘right of return' into Israel undermines the principle of a two-state solution 7. Over 800,000 Jews living in Arab countries were forcibly dispossessed from their homes in the years following the creation of Israel . They have never been compensated, but have nonetheless resettled and built new lives in Israel . The Palestinians should rebuild rather than continue to recriminate about the past
DETAILED ARGUMENTS:
The Palestinian demand for a “right of return” is premised in part on the claim that Israel is responsible for making the Palestinians into refugees when Israel came into being in 1948. This argument is a myth. The refugee problem was primarily the result of two acts of violent rejection by the Arabs in 1947-8:-
It was Arab opposition to Israel 's existence which brought about the conflict of 1947-8, which in turn resulted in thousands of Palestinians becoming refugees. If the UN partition plan had been accepted by the Arabs, and the new State of Israel allowed to live in peace, there would have been no Palestinian refugees in the first place. At the same time a Palestinian state would have been established in 1948.
It is routinely claimed by the Palestinians, and their supporters, that Israel drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes in 1947-8. Indeed, it has become fashionable to accuse Israel of “ethnically cleansing” the land of Palestinians at that time. This is perhaps the most long-standing myth in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and is refuted by the historical record. Even the most ardent revisionist Israeli historians, who question the conventional Israeli accounts, stop short of suggesting that the Palestinians were driven en masse out of the country. There are three key reasons for the flight of Palestinians in 1947-8:-
Acts of wanton Jewish violence against Palestinian villages, and expulsions, did occur, but these were condemned at the time by the Jewish leadership, and were isolated episodes, not part of some systematic “ethnic cleansing”. Quite the contrary, Israel 's leaders frequently pleaded with Arab residents to stay in their homes during the fighting, but these pleas were mostly ignored. After the 1948 war, the bitterness of Palestinians who had become refugees was directed mainly at Arab leaders safely positioned in distant capitals for misleading them into leaving their homes during the fighting, only to find themselves permanently displaced when the Arabs were defeated.
In 1948, there were 726,000 Palestinian refugees, according to UNWRA (the United Nations agency which was specifically created to take responsibility for these refugees). In 2001, according to UNWRA, there were 3.8 million refugees (living in the West Bank and Gaza , Jordan , Syria , Lebanon and elsewhere). This is an increase of over 500% in their number in just over 50 years. It is the Arab nations' own policies which resulted in the perpetuation and increase in scale of the refugee problem over this period:-
Palestinian spokesmen routinely claim that UN General Assembly Resolution 194 requires Israel to permit Palestinian refugees to “return to their homes” inside Israel , as a matter of international law. Resolution 194 “resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours [our emphasis] should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible.” There are at least four arguments why this does not support the Palestinian demands:-
Israel was founded as a Jewish state – a country in which the Jewish people could enjoy the benefits and opportunities of independent nationhood. That is its raison d'etre. Israel today has a population of around 5.1 million Israeli Jews, and 1.3 million Israeli Arabs. If Israel grants the right to nearly 4 million Palestinians to return to “pre-1967” Israel , then that in principle destroys the Jewish character of the country, even if not all the Palestinians actually chose to return. Almost all Israeli citizens, and every Israeli government, is completely committed to maintaining the basic purpose of the country. For this reason, there is no issue which so unites Israelis – right-wing and left-wing, secular and religious, liberal and conservative – as the need to reject a general Palestinian right of return.
Most proposals for a negotiated solution are based on a version of the “two-state solution”: a secure Israel coexisting next to a viable Palestinian state. But the concept of the Palestinian ‘right of return' into Israel undermines this principle. If Israel were to grant that right, Palestinian refugees would enjoy the right to return not to one country but to two countries – Israel and a newly-formed Palestinian state. This makes the concept of a two-state solution meaningless. The Palestinian ‘right of return' is a euphemism for a “one-state solution” which would formalise the end of Israel as an independent Jewish state.
The Palestinian demand for a right of return is a backward-looking and hopelessly impractical demand. This was recognised in 1989 by Egypt 's President Mubarak who stated (Jerusalem Post, January 26 1989):- “The Palestinian peoples' demand for a right of return is totally unrealistic and would have to be solved by means of financial compensation and resettlement in Arab countries”. Those who advocate the Palestinian right of return claim that justice is on their side. But there can be no supposed “absolute justice” for the refugees – no return of every displaced person to his or her home. As long as that fantasy is promoted, there can be no peace. A lesson can be learnt from the Jews from Arab lands, hundreds of thousands of whom were displaced after the 1948 war, from their homes in Morocco , Yemen , Iraq , Libya and elsewhere. They have never been compensated for the loss of life and of property, but they have nonetheless resettled (in Israel or elsewhere) and built new lives. The Palestinians should rebuild rather than perpetually recriminating about the past. WHAT DOES ISRAEL PROPOSE IF NOT A GENERAL ‘RIGHT OF RETURN'? During Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and behind-the-scenes meetings in 2000-1, Israel tabled proposals to address the Palestinian refugee problem. These included the following:-
It is inevitable that such proposals would be discussed in the future, once negotiations resume. CONCLUSION Presented as a formula for achieving “absolute justice” for the Palestinians, the ‘right of return' is in fact a formula for absolute stalemate. It makes peace impossible to achieve. Supporters of Palestinian rights should be urging the Palestinian leadership and people to forego the ‘right of return' and look for pragmatic ways of making peace with Israel , and building their people's future.
|
||||||||||||||||||
