The issue of Palestinian refugees is at the core of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and an agreement on this core issue
is central to the survival of any political settlement to the
conflict. Palestinian refugees lived for more than six decades
after the 1948 war with the dream that one day they would go back
home. Although realities on the ground are changing and the picture
etched in their memory or inherited from their fathers and
grandfathers has changed, for any Palestinian refugee what matters
in essence is the right of return. It is highly probable that the
Palestinian houses do not exist anymore, or are inhabited by Jewish
families that were told that now they have become the owners of
these houses; yet, in the hearts and minds of the Palestinian
refugees, these houses are still there, exactly as they were when
their owners were forced to leave them. The same applies to the
fields and the orchards - the paradise of orange groves. Many
Palestinian refugees still carry the heavy iron keys to their
houses or the deeds to their properties, waiting for their
restitution.
On one hand, the right of return remains the code that inflames the
nationalist feelings of the refugees, and the accusation of anyone
accepting concessions on this right is reason enough to discredit
that person in the eyes of his or her own people. On the other
hand, Israel's position as affirmed by David Ben-Gurion in 1949,
immediately after Israel was accepted as a member of the United
Nations, is "Not one refugee will be allowed back and no single
inch of land will be returned." Israel's explanation for its
refusal to allow the return of the Arab refugees has always been
that it would change the character of Israel and convert it into an
Arab or bi-national state, whereas it should continue to be a
"Jewish" state, a homeland for the Jews, in accordance with UN
Resolution 181, known as the "Partition Plan." This resolution,
which called for the establishment of two states, a Jewish and an
Arab state, in the area of Mandatory Palestine, is considered as
the only reference to Israel's international legitimacy. However,
Israel accepts this resolution only as a principle; it rejects the
borders as stipulated in the resolution and insists on keeping
within its borders large areas from the part designated for the
Arab state, in addition to the International Zone of
Jerusalem.
In the face of this reality, upon which both sides insist, we may
find ourselves with our backs to the wall. No settlement to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be achieved without reaching a
fair and just solution to the refugee problem. One side should
relinquish its position, or both sides should take the necessary
steps and meet somewhere along the spectrum between the two
diametrically opposed positions.
In this issue, we will try to tackle this problem in its different
aspects. Have any new positions emerged within the two communities?
Can the two-state solution satisfy the ambitions, interests, and
fears of both parties? Is there an alternative to the right of
return? What about compensations? Can the refugees return to their
homes without jeopardizing the Jewish character of the state of
Israel? Could the right of return be exercised fully, partially or
symbolically, facilitating an agreed-upon political solution to the
conflict? What is the role of the international community in
resolving this problem? And, finally, where are we headed if we do
not adopt a realistic approach and try to resolve this conflict
before it is too late?