Figure 1.-- |
|
The right of return is one of the most difficult issues in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. One of the principle reasons that Arafat decided not to sign the Camp David accord was that it rfused to permit the right of retrurn of Palestinians refugees (now mostly the descendents of refugeees) to Israel. Here a lot of misleading retoric is often used. Palestinian spokesmen speaking in English often say they accept a two state sollution and recognize Israel's right to exist. One especially effectiive Palestinian spokespetrson is Dr. Hanan Ashrawi. Like many Palestinian spokespersons she criticses the 2000 Camp David accord. One of her principle objections is the failure to accomodate the right of return. Of course as a Palestinian spokespersons she has every right to advance the interests of her people. And her position accurately reflects the sentiment among most Palestinians. What is not legitimate, however, is to claim to recognize Israel's right to exist and then insist on the right of return. The two are mutually inconsistent. The position makes for effective propaganda. It dies not, however, offer any hope of resolving the conflict. It also leads one to seriously question if Palestinian leaders have any interest in a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Another issue concerning the right of return is that the discussion usually focuses only on Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees are usually ignored as if they never existed.
The right of return is one of the most difficult issues in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. One of the principle reasons that Arafat decided not to sign the Camp David accord was that it rfused to permit the right of retrurn of Palestinians refugees (now mostly the descendents of refugeees) to Israel. This principle is strongly felt throughout the Palestinian community. It is difficult to see how any Palestinian leader can abandon this key claim and maintain public support. For the Isrealis accepting the right of return for the regfugees and their descendents would be to commit national suiside. Thus it is difficult to see how the issue can be resolved in a way that is acceptable to both sides. The agreement offered Arafat included the possibility of some limited return, but Arafat was proabably correct in assessing that he would be unable to sell it to the Palestinian people.
One important aspect important in accessing the right of return issue is a full understanding the refugee issue. The most common misconception is that there were only Palestinian refugees. Assessments vary, both as to why the Palestinians fled and the numbers involved. There were probably about 0.5 million refugees as a result of the 1947-48 war. The number of descendents today is much larger. There were, however, two sets of refugees to be considered. There are also Jewish refugees. Only rarely do current discussions of the right of return address the plight of the Jewish refugees. Here the picture is more complicated. The Jewish refugees consisted of several different groups. One were the Jews living in areas assigned by the U.N. to a Palestinian state or the areas the Palestinians-Arabs retained control of when the 1949 ceasefire went into effect. There were of course Jewish refugees from Europe in the aftermath of the World War II NAZI Holocaust. Less well reported are the refugees forced to flee Arab and other Muslim states where thei ancestors had lived for years. Any fair assessment of the right of return has to take in account all of the refugees dislocated.
The Palestinians legal claim to the right of return is based on is based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The resolution does not include the phrase "right of return". Nor is the resolution specifcally directed exclusively at Palestinian refugees. The Article 11 of the text reads, "... 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, 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". Lawyers of course vary as to the meaning here, but there are elements of the Resolution that seem clear even to laymen. Note that the resolution does not mention the descendants of refugees. And clearly there is no qualifier to the term "refugees". Thus the meaning is all refugees, noy just Palestinian Arab refugees. This means that both Jewish and
and Palestinian refugees are covered by the terms of the resolution. It is also important to note when considering 194 the legal staus of a General Assembly resolution. A UN Security Council Resolution is binding on member states. General Assembly resolutions do not carry that force. General Assembly are considered to be merely non-binding recommendations.
Palestinian and Arab sources today very commonly refer to 194 in making a claim for the right of return. Notably at the time 194 was passed by the General Assembly, Arab states voted against it. At the time because they complained that there was not a more specufic statement of the Palestinian right of return and more importantly implicitly recognized Israel. It is also important to note the inclusion of the phrase "to live at peace with their neighbors". Only refugees willing to live at peace were to be allowed to return.
Here a lot of misleading retoric is often used. Palestinian spokesmen speaking in English often say they accept a two state sollution and recognize Israel's right to exist. One especially effectiive Palestinian spokespetrson is Dr. Hanan Ashrawi. Like many Palestinian spokespersons she criticses the 2000 Camp David accord. One of her principle objections is the failure to accomodate the right of return. Palestinian President Machmud Abass has also insisted in the right of return. Of course as a Palestinian spokespersons she has every right to advance the interests of her people. And her position seem to accurately reflects the sentiment among most Palestinians. Perhaps more poninetly, a Palestinian who questions the right of return probably puts his or her life in danger. What is not legitimate, however, is to claim to recognize Israel's right to exist and then insist on the right of return. The two are mutually inconsistent and Dr. Ashrawi undoubtedly knows that. The position makes for effective propaganda. It dies not, however, offer any hope of resolving the conflict. It also leads one to seriously question if Palestinian leaders have any interest in a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
As resolution 194 specifically applies only to refugees who wish "to live at peace with their neighbors", one must assess to what extent the Palestinians want or are prepared to lice at peace with the Isrealis. Here assessing Palestinian attitudes. And because the Palestinians do not have political structure or culture capable of allowing majority attitudes to prevail, even a minority of Palestinians seem able to disrupt the peace process regardless of majority opinion. Both the PLO and Hamas reject peace with Israel.
HAMAs has been the most vehement in its rejection of the peace process. Article 13 of the Hamas charter specifically states that peaceful solutions and international conferences contradict the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement and that Jihad is the only solution. Hamas has rejected the Oslo peace process. It is not just HAMAs that rejects the peace process. The PLO when speaking to Western journalists claims to be committed to the peace process. They often speak differebtly to the Arab media.
The PLO position is more ambiguous than HAMAS. The PLO has never made promised changes to their Charter. Article 9 of the PLO covenant declares that armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy. It reads, "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it." [PLO] Article 19 rejects the 1947 U.N. partition. It reads, " The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination." [PLO] This means that the PLO Charter continues to reject a two-state solluion. The PLO, as part of the Oslo Peace Process, amended their Charter by "canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993" (1996). As part of the agreement, the PLO legal committee was given the task of redrafting the Charter so the revised text could be presented to the Palestinian Central Council. This has never been done. some elements of the PLO have expressed a willingness to recognize Israel. Other elements of the PLO continue to reject the peace process.
PLO. Palestinian Media Center, "PLO Charter".
Navigate the Children in History Website:
[Return to Main Arab and Jewish Palestinian page]
[About Us]
[Introduction]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Climatology]
[Clothing]
[Disease and Health]
[Economics]
[Freedom]
[Geography]
[History]
[Human Nature]
[Ideology]
[Law]
[Nationalism]
[Presidents]
[Religion]
[Royalty]
[Science]
[Social Class]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Children in History Home]