Palestinian right of return

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may be too long. Please discuss this issue on the talk page, if necessary split the content into subarticles and keep this article in a summary style.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(January 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This artwork is entitled Resolution 194, a UN resolution that proponents of the right of return cite as favoring their cause. The keys symbolize the keys many Palestinians forced to leave their homes keep with them as mementos. Such keys and the Handala are common Palestinian symbols of the right of return.^[1][2]

The Palestinian right of return (Arabic: حق العودة Ḥaqq al-ʿawda; Hebrew: זכות השיבה zkhut hashivah) is a political position or principle asserting that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees and their descendants, have a right to return to the homes and villages they left or were forced out of in Palestine (currently Israel and Palestinian territories) as result of the 1948 Palestine war and the 1967 Six-Day war.

The number of displaced Palestinians from the 1948 war is approximated at 700,000 and most sources tend to agree that 280,000 to 350,000 became refugees during the Six-Day War (1967). Approximately 120,000-170,000 among the '67 refugees are believed to have also been refugees from the '48 war, fleeing a second time.^[3] Today the number of Palestinian refugees, including both first-generation refugees and their descendants, is estimated with at least four million.^[4]

The issue of the right of return has been of great importance to Palestinians since 1948.^[5] The first formal recognition of this right was UN General Assembly Resolution 194 passed on 11 December 1948 which recognized the right of those refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors.^[6] UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, passed on the 22 November 1974 declared it an "inalienable right".^[5]

However, General Assembly resolutions are not binding according to international law. The Oslo Agreements explicitly omit mention of these resolutions. ^[7]

The right of return was defined as the "foremost of Palestinian rights" at the 12th Palestine National Council meeting in 1974 when it became the first component of the Palestine Liberation Organization's trinity of inalienable rights, the others being the right of self determination and the right to an independent state.^[8]

The Palestinian Authority is now planning to implement the "Right of Return" to mark Israel's 60 anniversary by "calling on all Palestinians living abroad to converge on Israel by land, sea and air. "[4]

Proponents of the right of return hold that it is an inalienable and basic human right, whose applicability both generally and specific to the Palestinians is protected under international law [5], [6],[7], This view holds that those who opt not to return or for whom return is not feasible, should receive compensation in lieu. Israel's government does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace deal.[8] [9] Jewish Israelis from the mainstream political parties often view the acceptance of a "right of return" as "national suicide," because if every Palestinian refugee were admitted to Israel, the total population would be nearly 40% Arab and likely to be come majority Palestinian.[10]. The Israeli government prefers to implement the right of return, if at all, only in those territories it allocates to a future Palestinian state.^[9] Those who opt not to live in the Palestinian state could instead receive compensation (possibly while compensating the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries as well).

Other disputed aspects include the issue of the territorial unit to which Palestinian self-determination would attach, the context (whether primarily humanitarian or political) within which the right is being advanced, and the generalizability of the principles advocated or established to other current and former refugee situations.^[10]

[edit] Background

Part of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Arab-Israeli conflict series
Israeli-Palestinian peace process
Israel       The West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights1
Negotiating parties
Palestinians	Israel
History of the peace process
Camp David Accords • Madrid Conference • Oslo Accords • Oslo II • Hebron Agreement • Wye River Memorandum • Sharm e-Sheikh memorandum • Camp David 2000 Summit • Taba Summit • Road map • Annapolis Conference
Primary negotiation concerns
Antisemitic incitements • Status of Jerusalem • Israeli settlements • Israeli West Bank barrier • Jewish state • Palestinian political violence • Palestinian refugees • Palestinian state • Places of worship
Current Leaders
Mahmoud Abbas • Salam Fayyad	Ehud Olmert • Shimon Peres
International brokers
Diplomatic Quartet  · Arab League  · Egypt
Other proposals
Beirut Summit • Elon Peace Plan • Lieberman Plan • Geneva Accord • Hudna • Israel's unilateral disengagement plan and Realignment plan • Projects working for peace • Peace Valley plan 1 The Golan Heights are not part of Israeli-Palestinian track v • d • e

[edit] 1948 Palestinian exodus

Main article: 1948 Palestinian exodus

The Palestinian refugee problem arose during the 1948 Palestine War. On a total of around 900,000 Arab Palestinians between 700,000 and 750,000 fled or were expelled from their homes and the area that became Israel. They settled in refugee camps in the West Bank, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria and in the Gaza strip.

On September 16, 1948, the United Nations Mediator in Palestine prepared a progress report for the General Assembly on the state of the war. It estimated the number of Palestinian refugees at that time at around 360,000.^[11] After the war the UN estimated the number of refugees outside Israel at 711,000.^[12] No Arab country except Jordan has to date assimilated a significant population of Palestinian refugees, nor given them full citizenship, and many rely on economic aid from the UN or persons in other countries.^[13] It is the position of most Arab governments not to grant citizenship to the descendants of Palestinian refugees born within their borders, even though many have known no other home.

[edit] Causes and responsibilities

Main article: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict. Although historians now agree on most of the events of that period there is still disagreement on whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders, or whether it was an unintended result of the war.

Benny Morris claims there were four waves. From December 1947 to March 1948, around 100,000 Palestinians left. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the situation had calmed down.^[14] From April to July, between 250,000 and 300,000 fled in front of Haganah offensives, mainly from the towns of Haïfa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, that lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.^[15] Some expulsions arose, particularly along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem road^[16] and in Eastern Galilea.^[17] After the truce of June, about 100,000 Palestinians became refugees.^[18] About 50,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by Israeli forces during Operation Danny,^[19] and most others during clearing operations performed by the IDF on its rear areas.^[20] During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee could remain in their homes.^[21] They later formed the core of the Arab Israelis. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to chase Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to chase the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee. This generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinians. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled.^[22] During Operation Hiram, at least nine massacres of Arabs were performed by IDF soldiers.^[23] After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF cleared its borders, which resulted in the expulsion of around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs.^[24]

While the specifics of Morris' interpretations have been contested from both sides, many of his arguments, and those of the other Israeli "New Historians," have become widely accepted within Israeli academic and public circles. ^[25]

[edit] Absentees' property

Main article: Land and Property laws in Israel

During the Palestinian exodus, Israeli leaders decided against the return of the refugees. During her visit at Haïfa on May 1, 1948, Golda Meir declared: "The Jews should treat the remaining Arabs 'with civil and human equality', but 'it is not our job to worry about the return [of those who have fled]".^[26] A group consisting of "local authorities, the kibbutz movements, the settlement departments of the National institutions, Haganah commanders and influential figures such as Yosef Weitz and Ezra Danin started lobbying against repatriation.^[27] A Transfer Committee and a policy of faits accomplis were set up to prevent a refugee return.^[28] In July, it had become an official policy:^[29] "Absentees' property" was managed by Israeli government and numerous Palestinian villages were levelled.

[edit] 1967 Palestinian exodus

Main article: 1967 Palestinian exodus

During the Six-Day War another Palestinian exodus occurred. A United Nations report estimated that 280,000 to 350,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as a result of the Six-Day War, approximately 120,000-170,000 among them were believed to also be refugees from the first war, fleeing a second time.^[30]

[edit] UN General Assembly resolution 194

The issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees has been a very sensitive issue for Palestinians (and Arab countries in the region) since the creation of the refugee problem as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.^[5] It is said that United Nations UN General Assembly Resolution 194[11] which was passed on December 11, 1948 recognized the right for the first time.

Resolution 194 deals with the situation in the region of Palestine at the time, establishing and defining the role of the United Nations Conciliation Commission as an organization to facilitate peace in the region. Unlike Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, UN General Assembly Resolutions have only a recommendatory character.

[edit] Article 11 - Palestinian Refugees

The main Article of Resolution 194, for the purpose of this article, is Article 11 which deals with the return of refugees.

Article 11 of the resolution reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the 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 the Governments or authorities responsible.

[edit] Interpretations

The exact meaning and timing of enforcement of the resolution were disputed from the beginning.

Since the late 1960s, Article 11 has increasingly been quoted by those who interpret it as a basis for the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees.

Israel has always contested this reading, pointing out that the text merely states that the refugees "should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors". [12] In particular, David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, insisted in an interview with the members of the Conciliations Commission that as long as Israel could not count on the dedication of any Arab refugees to remain "at peace with their neighbors" - a consequence, he contended, of the Arab states' unwillingness to remain at peace with the state of Israel - resettlement was not an obligation for his country.^[31]

Another issue is the definition of who is a refugee to which the resolution applies. The term is undefined. If one were to apply the UNHCR definition, established by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the descendents of a refugee would not have the rights of the original refugee. (see Palestinian refugee.)

Interestingly, one may compare the present positions of the opposing sides today to those at the time Resolution 194 was being voted on: Israel voted in favour of the resolution, while all Arab League members Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against the resolution [13].

[edit] Scope of the issue

The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel following its creation, along with their descendants, now stands at around four million.^[4]

Left-wing Israelis are open to compromise on the issue, by means such as the monetary reparations and family reunification initiatives offered by Ehud Barak at the Camp David 2000 summit. However, the majority of Israelis find a comprehensive right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable. They base their position on several factors:

• Israeli official sources, foreign press, and officials present at the time, and historians such as Joseph Schechtman have long claimed that the 1948 refugee crisis was instigated by the invading Arab armies, who ordered Palestinian civilians to evacuate the battle zone. Opponents of the right of return, such as Efraim Karsh say that Israel is therefore not obligated to compensate Palestinians or allow them to return.^[32] Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.^[33] However, historians such as Benny Morris, Erskine Childers, and Walid Khalidi state that no evidence of widespread evacuation orders exists, and that Arab leaders in fact instructed the Palestinian Arabs to stay put. According to Morris, whatever the reasons driving many into flight, temporary evacuation under local orders, contagious panic, fear of Jewish arms, or direct expulsion manu militari, the 700,000 odd Palestinians who did become refugees acquired that status as a result of compulsory displacement or expulsion, since they were not permitted by Israel to return.^[34] In any case, even if the 1948 exodus had not been caused by Israel, the claimed right of return is not contingent on Israeli responsibility for the displacement of refugees.^[35]

• Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state and Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.^[36] This point, however, is a matter of some contention as several Jewish militia actions were considered to provoke and sometimes force Palestinian-Arabs to leave Israel.^[37] Still, such cases were relatively rare, and the vast majority of Palestinians fled of their own accord.^[32] Since most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, there is also an argument that Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility.^[32] A 1952 memorandum submitted to the League of Arab States by the Higher Arab Committee reveals that Arab states officially agreed to take responsibility for these refugees at the height of the Palestinian exodus. However, only until such time as Israel would be destroyed:

Arab leaders and their ministries in Arab capitals ... declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine.^[38]

• There is no legal basis to demand repatriation of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. No international legislation, UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this.^[39]
• Historical legal precedent from the Middle East supports this contention. Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.^[40]
• An influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel. Because a right of return would make Arabs the majority within Israel, this would essentially seal the fate of the Jewish state. As Fatah explains: “To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state.”^[41][40]

Palestinian and international authors have justified the right of return of the Palestinian refugees on several grounds:^[42][43][44]

• Several authors included in the broader New Historians assert that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun.^[45] A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that:

"At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...^[46][47][48]

• The traditional Israeli point of view arguing that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to flee has also been disputed by the New Historians, which instead have shown evidence indicating Arab leaders' will for the Palestinian Arab population to stay put.^[49]
• The Israeli Law of Return that grants citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world is viewed by some as discrimination towards non-Jews and especially to Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or left.^{[50][51][52][53]}
• The strongest legal basis on the issue is UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948. It states that, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the 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 the Governments or authorities responsible." UN Resolution 3236 "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return". Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," however, Resolution 242 does not specify that the "just settlement" must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return.^[54][55]

[edit] Arguments

[edit] Arguments for

Supporters of the right of return assert it partly based on the following sources:

• Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. -Article 13(2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948).^[56][57]

• The Geneva Conventions of 1949.^[57]

• The General Assembly, Having considered further the situation in Palestine ... Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date ... -UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (11 December 1948)^[58]
• UN Resolution 3236 which "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return".^[59]

• Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem."

• The right of return for the 1948 Palestinian refugees still exists according to international law. It exists despite the language of the Oslo agreements, insufficient as they are in this regard, and despite the position of the current Israeli government. Palestinian refugees should be free to seek their right to repatriation, regardless of what the PLO acquiesces to, so long as UN Resolution 194 remains in force.^[60].

• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. -Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (23 March 1976).^[61]

• The right of return would not necessarily threaten Israel's Jewish identity; surveys have shown that most (90% of) Palestinians would not exercise that right even if it were offered.^{[citation needed]}

According to Akram^[62] although the status of Palestinian nationals/citizens after the creation of the State of Israel has been much debated, established principles of state succession,^[63] human rights and humanitarian law confirm that the denationalization of Palestinians was illegal and that they retain the right to return to their places of origin.

The author states that human rights have confirmed illegality of denationalization of Palestinians because when denationalization is based on race or ethnic origin, it is a violation of the general principles of nondiscrimination in customary international law, as well as of Articles 1 and 16 of the ICCPR, 999 UNTS 173, 19 December 1966, and Article 5.d.ii of the CERD, 660 UNTS 221, 7 March 1966. According to Akram, humanitarian law is breached because its principles prohibit transferring civilian populations under the control of an occupier and require return of those expelled. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, have explicit provisions affirming the right of return to persons forced from their homes by hostilities. For example the "Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva IV) of 1949," 75 UNTS 31, 12 August 1949.

Akram states that since 1948, the principles of the internationally binding right of return have been strengthened by their inclusion in numerous treaties, many of which bind Israel as a signatory. The right of return is expressly recognized in most international human rights instruments, including, Article 13.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); Article 12.4 of the ICCPR; Article 5.d.ii of the CERD, 7 March 1966; Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights of Man, Organization of American States (OAS), Res. XXX, OAS Official Records, OEA ser. L/w/I.4 (1965), Article 22.5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 UNTS 123, 22 November 1969; Article 12.2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 1981, 21 ILM 59, 1982; and Article 3.2 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 UNTS 221, 1950.

Akram claims that after 1969, the UN General Assembly, partly in response to new Arab and PLO priorities, shifted its perspective to acknowledge the Palestinians as a people having rights under the UN charter (see, for example, the first paragraph of UNGA Res. 2535B of 10 December 1969, UN GAOR, 24th Sess., Supp. No. 30 at 25, UN Doc. A/8730 (1970). The author considers that recognition of the Palestinians' juridical status has been affirmed by all subsequent UN resolutions on the subject (see, for example, UNGA Res. 2672C,UN GAOR, 25th Sess., Supp. No. 28 at 36, UN Doc. A/8028; UNGA Res. 3210,UN GAOR, 24th Sess., Supp. No. 30 at 25, UN Doc. A/8730, 1970; UNGA Res. 3236, UN GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31 at 4, UN Doc. A/9631).

Many Palestinians argue that they have an inherent right of return to land which they or their ancestors had owned or resided in previous to the establishment of the state of Israel, and that they must therefore be given full Israeli citizenship under the terms of any future peace agreement. They question the legality of Israeli control over these lands, and point out the necessity of said lands for their proper livelihood. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 supports this argument, and resolved that Israel should permit "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors" to do so. Israel agreed under the terms of its admittance into the UN to abide by the terms of this resolution. Therefore, some have made the case that Israel is bound under international law to accept a full Palestinian right of return.^[6]

On March 15, 2000, a group of 100 prominent Palestinians from around the world expressed their opinion that the right of return is individual, rather than collective, and that it cannot therefore be reduced or forfeited by any representation on behalf of the Palestinians in any agreement or treaty. They argued that the right to property "cannot be extinguished by new sovereignty or occupation and does not have a statute of limitation," and asserted that "it is according to this principle that the European Jews claimed successfully the restitution of their lost property in World War II." Their declaration partly rested on the assertion that, on certain occasions, Palestinians were expelled from their homes in Israel. The declaration placed the number of towns and villages in which this occurred at 531.^[64]

Some also regard as a massive injustice the fact that Jews are allowed to emigrate to Israel under Israel's Law of Return, even if their immediate ancestors have not lived in the area in recent years, while people who grew up in the area and whose immediate ancestors had lived there for many generations are forbidden from returning.^[65]

The Global Policy Forum asserts its support for a Palestinian Right of Return on the grounds of international customs and law:

It is a generally recognized principle of international law that when sovereignty ... over an area changes hands, there is a concurrent transfer of responsibility for the population of that territory. Therefore it cannot be argued that Palestinians ... no longer had any rights with regard to the country in which they had lived simply because of a change in the nature of the ... government in that territory. Moreover, where expulsion or prevention from return results in ... statelessness, Article 15 of the Declaration, which stipulates that "[e]veryone has the right to a nationality," becomes a further relevant protection of the right of return.^[6]

[edit] Arguments against

Some critics of the Palestinian "right of return" also argue that it is not supported by international precedent, drawing attention to the 758,000-866,000 Jews were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, with property losses of $1 billion.^[66] These critics argue that since these refugees were neither compensated nor allowed return—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders or international legal authorities—the international community had accepted this migration of Jews as fait accompli, and thereby set legal precedent in the region against a right of return.^[67][40] Former Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett asserted that the migration of refugees between Israel and the Arab World essentially constituted a population exchange. He argued that precedent, such as the exchange of 2.5 million people between Poland and the Soviet Union, as well as the 13 million Hindus and Muslims who crossed the India-Pakistan border, showed that international law neither requires nor expects the reversal of population exchanges. He further argued that precedent does not require reversal even of one-directional refugee migrations, such as the expulsion of 900,000 Germans from Czechoslovakia following World War II. In Sharett's view, Israel was singled out as the exception to international law.^[67]

Israeli novelist Amos Oz is among those who have argued that the enactment of the Palestinian "right of return" would make Arabs the majority in Israel. In Oz's view, such a step would amount to "abolishing the Jewish people's right to self determination." Oz further claims that Palestinian leaders claim a right of return while cynically ignoring "the fate of hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews who fled and were driven out of their homes in Arab countries, during the same war."^[68]

Critics of the right of return argue that it is the failure of Arab states to fulfill this promise (with the exception of Jordan) which keeps the Palestinian refugees in their current limbo, not Israeli policy.^{[13][citation needed][69]} Efraim Karsh asserts that "whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Palestinians' legal case, their foremost argument for a 'right of return' has always rested on a claim of unprovoked victimhood." In Karsh's view, because Palestinians were not the victims of a "Zionist grand design to dispossess them" but "the aggressors in the 1948-49 war" they are responsible for the refugee problem. Karsh does not deny that some Palestinians were forcibly expelled, but places the blame for the bulk of the exodus on Palestinian and Arab elites and leaders.^[32]

Ruth Lapidoth from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has argued that U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 does not specify a "right", but rather says refugees "should" be allowed to return. She has also noted that General Assembly resolutions are not binding to member states, and that this particular resolution based its recommendations on two conditions: that refugees wish to return, and that they be willing to "live at peace with their neighbors." She argues that the latter condition is unfulfilled, citing the actions of Palestinian militant groups. She concludes that Palestinian refugees have right to seek a negotiated compensation, but not a "right of return".^[39]

Lapidoth's essay also references a statement made by Stig Jagerskiold in 1966, in which he argues that the right of return was intended as an individual and not a collective right:

...[it] is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claims of masses of people who have been displaced as a by-product of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of the Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries.^[39]

[edit] Bearing on the peace process

The argument over the existence of such a right has perpetuated the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and the failure of the peace process is due, in large part, to the inability of the two parties to achieve a solution with justice for both sides.

The majority of Palestinians consider that their homeland was lost in the al-Nakba ("the catastrophe") of 1948, and see the Right of Return as crucial to a peace agreement with Israel, even if the vast majority of surviving refugees and their descendants do not exercise that right. The Palestinians consider the vast majority of refugees as victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and cite massacres such as Deir Yassin.

See also: List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

The majority of Israelis find a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable, pointing out that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would eventually cause Israel's Jewish population to become a minority, thus undermining Israel's status as a Jewish state.

Israel's first offer of any compensation for the property which had been confiscated from the 1948 Palestinian refugees only occurred 52 years later, during the 2000 Camp David Summit, and it consisted of allowing other countries to provide nearly all of the compensation. During this time, most of the original refugees had died without any compensation.

The Palestinian right of return had been one of the issues whose solution had been deferred until the "final status agreement" in the Oslo Accords of 1993. Not only was there no final status agreement, but the Oslo process itself broke down, and its failure was a major cause of the Second Intifada and the continuing violence.

Israel demanded that Arafat forever abandon the right of return for the Palestinian refugees during the 2000 Camp David Summit, and Arafat's refusal has been cited as one of the leading causes of the summit's failure.

[edit] U.S. government policy, 2007

[edit] U.S. Congress

In 2007, both the US Senate and House of Representatives passed a resolution to

Make clear that the United States Government supports the position that, as an integral part of any comprehensive peace, the issue of refugees and the mass violations of human rights of minorities in Arab and Muslim countries throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf must be resolved in a manner that includes (A) consideration of the legitimate rights of all refugees displaced from Arab and Muslim countries throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf; and (B) recognition of the losses incurred by Jews, Christians, and other minority groups as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.^[70]

[edit] U.S. President George W. Bush

On July 16, 2007, US President George W. Bush affirmed that the Israelis "should be confident that the United States will never abandon its commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people."^[71] This has been interpreted as "the rejection of the Palestinians' immutable demand for the resettlement of millions of refugees and their descendants in Israel. America is now officially dedicated to upholding Israel's Jewish majority and preventing its transformation into a de facto Palestinian state."^[72]

[edit] Historic attempts at resolution

Since the Palestinian exodus of 1948, there have been many attempts to resolve the right of return dispute. These have produced minor results at best.

In 1949, Mark Etheridge, the American representative to the United Nations Conciliation Commission (UNCC), suggested that Israel agree to grant full citizenship to the 70,000 Arab residents in the Gaza Strip, as well as its 200,000 refugees, on the condition that the Gaza Strip--then part of Egypt--be incorporated into Israel. Israel's delegation to the UNCC accepted this offer, although this plan was rejected and criticized by Arab government, the United States, and even Israel's own government.^[73]

In the Lausanne Conference, Israel announced to the UNCC on August 3, 1949, that it would allow up to 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return into Israel. But this plan was not designed as a panacea for the refugee crisis. Rather, it was to "form a part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created ... by the United Nations." Israel reserved the right to permit settlement of the refugees only in areas in which settlement would not be detrimental to the security and economy of the state. The UNCC and Arab governments communicated unofficially at the matter. The Arab governments agreed to the offer, but under drastically different terms: that it apply only to the area originally allotted to Israel under the Partition Plan, that all refugees originating from areas allotted to Arabs or under international control be immediately allowed to return to their homes, and that Israel exercise no control over the location of resettlement. Since the parties failed to agree on the terms of the measure, it died in July of the following year, as Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett declared: "The context in which that offer was made has disappeared, and Israel is no longer bound by that offer."^[73]

On August 23, 1949, the United States sent Gordon R. Clapp, chairman of the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority, on the Clapp Mission. This mission was tasked with economic surveying, to estimate Arab states' capability of absorbing Palestinian refugees. This mission failed dramatically in achieving this goal. As Clapp would explain on February 16, 1950 in front of the American House Foreign Affairs Committee: "Resettlement was a subject that the Arab governments were not willing to discuss, with the exception of King Abdallah" (sic) The mission concluded that, although repatriation would be the best solution to the refugee question, circumstances on the ground would only allow philanthropic relief. Moreover, it recommended that this relief be limited to four small pilot projects: in Jordan, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.^[74]

On December 2, 1950, The United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 393 by a vote of 46 in favor, 0 against, 6 abstaining. Its supporters included every Arab nation.^[75] This resolution allocated "no less than the equivalent of $30,000,000" to the economic integration of Palestinian refugees in the Near East, "without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194."^[76] Toward this goal, Israel donated the equivalent of $2.8 million, and Arab states pledged almost $600,000. The United States accounted for the greatest pledge with $25 million.^[75]

On November 29, 1951, John B. Blandford Jr., then director of UNRWA, proposed spending $50 million on relief for Palestinian refugees, and another $200 million on their integration into the communities where they resided. The New York Times reported that Blandford aspired to see 150,000 to 250,000 refugees resettled in Arab nations by building an economic infrastructure which would make their integration more plausible and sustainable for Arab societies. On January 26, 1952, the General Assembly accepted his proposal. Jordan, Syria and Egypt all agreed to absorb a share of the refugee population, although these pledges never came to fruition. The General Assembly continually reiterated its request that Arab governments absorb Palestinian refugees, but Henry R. Labouisse, who had by that time become UNRWA's third director, admitted the defeat of the program in 1955, blaming "resistance to self-support programs," and host governments' "political objections to large-scale projects."^[75]

In 2002, former representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Sari Nusseibeh proposed a settlement between Israel and Palestine which would grant Palestinians a right of return to a Palestinian state, but not to Israel. The proposal failed.^[77]

The 2003 Geneva Accord, which was an agreement between individuals and not between official representatives of the government of Israel and the Palestinian people, completely relinquished the idea of a Right of Return. This document is extra-governmental, and therefore unofficial and non-binding.^[77]

[edit] See also

• Israeli Law of Return
• Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• Right of return
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Bowker, Robert (2003). Palestinian Refugees: Mythology, Identity, and the Search for Peace. Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 1588262022
• Gelber, Yoav (2006). Palestine 1948. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 1-84519-075-0.
• Khalidi, Walid (1959). Why Did the Palestinians Leave? Middle East Forum, July 1959. Reprinted as 'Why Did the Palestinians Leave Revisited', 2005, Journal of Palestine Studies, XXXIV, No. 2., pp. 42-54.
• Morris, Benny (2003). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521009677
• Pomerance, Michla (1982). Self-Determination in Law and Practice: The New Doctrine in the United States. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9024725941
• Schulz, Helena Lindholm (2003). The Palestinian Diaspora. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415268206

[edit] External links

• Al Awda, The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition.
• Right of return: Palestinian dream?, BBC News Online.
• VIDEO: Muhammad Jaradat and Eitan Bronstein - "Acknowledging the Past; Imagining the Future: Israelis and Palestinians on 1948 and the Right of Return", April 1, 2008, Portland, Oregon. Eitan Bronstein of the Jewish Israeli group, Zochrot, and Muhammad Jaradat of the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugees' Rights.