This paper is the result of a combined Palestinian-Israeli attempt
at a dialogue on the refugee problem and the 'Right of Return'.
Despite both parties' attempts to digress from traditional
standpoints, they were unable to reach an acceptable compromise.
This paper outlines the main facets of the problem and the views of
both sides, highlighting which points are negotiable and which are
more problematic. The refugee issue consists of eleven focal points
for negotiation and while the first three and last two are
procedural, the other six are pertinent to the negotiations.
Defining the Size of the Problem
Both sides disagree about the current number of refugees. The
Israelis claim there are two and a half million, UNRWA registers
indicate numbers have reached approximately four million, and some
independent Palestinian sources estimate the total at six million.
Similarly, there is a dispute over the value of the possessions
left behind by the internal refugees and there is also controversy
over the value of the reparations to be extended for psychological
damage. Israeli estimates range between $3 to $10 billion, while
the Palestinians put the figure at between $20 to $200 billion.
Solving these disagreements will require cooperation between a
number of Arab and international parties in addition to the two
sides themselves.
The Terms of Reference for Negotiations
The two parties disagree over the co-opted reference to be followed
in negotiations over the refugee issue. Both have accepted Security
Council Resolution 242, which stipulates the need for a "just
solution" to the refugee problem. And since the UN has ratified
General Assembly Resolution 194 as a solution to the problem tens
of times, the Palestinians consider the references within
Resolution 242 inclusive of Resolution 194. But Israel refuses to
accept this resolution as a basis for negotiations despite the fact
that it has recognized within the Jordanian-Israeli peace accords
that the principles of international law should be applied to the
discussion of the refugee issue.
The Negotiating Parties
The PLO and Israel have agreed that the resolution of the refugee
problem should take place within the framework of bilateral
negotiations, but the countries hosting the refugees also have
rights and responsibilities for this issue. These countries may
wish to negotiate in the name of the refugees residing in their
country; this is especially applicable to Jordan, which has granted
the refugees Jordanian citizenship. Other countries could refuse to
absorb any of the refugees, regardless of the solution agreed on by
Palestine and Israel.
Israel may also wish to link refugee compensation to similar claims
made by Jews against the Arab countries they left, following the
establishment of the Jewish state. If these countries refuse to
compensate the Jews, this could hold up negotiations on all related
compensation issues. In addition, Israel may wish to lay the
responsibility of gathering the funds necessary for compensation
payments upon the shoulders of the international community and
donors, which would give them a major role in negotiations.
Israel's Admission of Responsibility
Despite the fact that Resolution 194 does not require Israel to
directly declare its responsibility for the existence of the
refugee problem, Israel refuses to agree that this resolution
should be considered a term of reference. The absence of an Israeli
admission of responsibility, coupled with its refusal to recognize
this resolution, might enable the Jewish state to evade its
responsibilities not only towards the right of return but also to
compensation.
Additionally, an Israeli admission of responsibility could enhance
the chances of establishing a peace agreement between the two
peoples. There have been positive steps within Israel over this
issue, with the "new historians" challenging the accepted Israeli
historical narrative and clarifying Israeli responsibility for
expelling part of the refugees. Israeli television programs and
schoolbooks have also begun to deal positively with this issue;
even books published by the Israeli army have followed similar
trends. Israel, it seems, is ready to partially recognize the
suffering of the refugees and perhaps even its role in the problem,
provided that others, such as the Arab states, admit similar
responsibility.
Israel's Recognition of the Right of Return
The Palestinians fall back upon Resolution 194, and others taken by
the General Assembly, as well as on human rights conventions and
the principles of international law in their claims for the right
of return. It is vital for the Palestinians that Israel recognize
this right, to give the refugees the choice of returning to Israel,
accepting compensation and returning to the Palestinian state or
making a new life elsewhere. Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian
state can revoke the right of an individual refugee to return, and
without Israeli recognition of this right, the struggle will
continue.
However, Israeli recognition of the right of return would
contradict its narrative of what happened in 1948 and beyond. In
addition, Israel is afraid any recognition would result in the
return of millions of refugees, which would threaten its existence
as a Jewish state. Israel is, however, ready to recognize the right
of the refugees to return to the Palestinian state, although it may
place some conditions on the timeframe of any actual return.
Implementation of the Right of Return
The Palestinians demand that refugees who want to return to Israel
be granted the right to return to their houses there, while the
rest be allowed to return to the Palestinian state. Some
Palestinian politicians and analysts believe that only a limited
number of refugees will implement their right of return to Israel,
while the majority will prefer to return to the Palestinian state
or to remain where they are, after receiving Palestinian
citizenship and the right to reside in Palestine whenever they
wish. This belief is based on the radical shift which occurred in
the Palestinian national movement's aims in the mid-seventies,
exchanging the aim of liberating all of Palestine for that of
establishing an independent Palestinian state.
This shift created a contradiction between the desire for return
and the wish to establish an independent state, but it was felt
that most refugees would probably refuse to accept Israeli
citizenship. Additionally, many had obtained citizenship from their
host countries, some having lived there for over fifty years. Those
refugees might not want to put their right of return into practice,
uprooting themselves to start over after so many years, and
relinquishing the benefits they may have attained in their host
country. This is especially applicable to Palestinian refugees in
Jordan who left the refugee camps and integrated into the country's
civil and political life.
Thirdly, refugees may be unable to return to their old towns and
villages, either because they have been destroyed or because they
have been enveloped into the surrounding Israeli environment.
However, whole communities could be returned to new homes within
the Palestinian state, allowing them a feeling of continuity, even
when putting their right of return into practice.
Finally, only 10 percent of refugees were born in areas inside the
Green Line; while some might feel nostalgia for their birthplace,
many of their offspring would probably prefer to practice their
right of self-determination within a Palestinian state.
Therefore, one can distinguish between the principle of the right
of return and the practice. However, Israel has so far denied the
refugees any right of return, in theory or practice. It regards
this as an existential issue; the return of four million refugees
would cause it to lose its Jewish identity.
Israel could accept a turn of phrase that would allow it to
recognize the Palestinian right of return in principle, on the
condition that this right is put into practice only within the
Palestinian state. Israel would allow a limited number of refugees
(no more than 100,000) to return to Israel under a family
reunification program. This would allow for some flexibility if the
number to be allowed back were left up to the refugees
themselves.
Absorption within the Host States
Absorption could have two meanings: obtaining nationality and thus
permanent residency within the host country; or permanent residency
within the host state after obtaining Palestinian citizenship and
the right to enter the Palestinian state at any time. The
Palestinians refuse to accept any solution that would revoke the
Palestinian identity of the refugees by forcing them to settle in
the host countries or emigrate to other countries. At the same
time, the Palestinian position does not insist the refugees return,
it simply gives them the right to choose between staying where they
are, putting their right of return into practice, or opting to live
within the Palestinian state.
Israel would prefer that the refugees are naturalized where they
are, fearing that if the Palestinian state is unable to
successfully absorb the large numbers of returning refugees, this
could threaten the long term stability of any permanent solution
between Israel and Palestine. Some host countries, such as Jordan,
have already naturalized most of their refugees. But others, like
Lebanon, might refuse, as doing so would affect the sectarian
balance within that country. Thus any negotiations over the issue
of absorption would also require the direct participation of the
host states.
Compensation and Rehabilitation
The Palestinians will demand at least three types of compensation
within the final status negotiations: (1) for homes (2) for the
suffering, pain and loss of opportunities (3) for Israel's use of
refugee land and possessions.
The Palestinians will demand that compensation be paid on an
individual basis according to the value of each refugee's
possessions, and on a group basis to compensate for mental
suffering. It must be agreed whether the value of possessions is to
be assessed according to 1948 prices, in addition to the revenues
they would have yielded since that time, or according to their
current value. Other obstacles to finding a final total include
which method should be used to prove possession, how reparations
for suffering and loss of opportunity should be calculated, and
which precedents within international law should be used. The
Palestinians will also want to deal with the issue of compensation
for refugees living in or absorbed by the host states. Will the
host states receive funds for group compensation, and will this
money be used to move the refugees out of camps to integrate them
into the economic and social fabric of that state?
"Closing the File"
Israel will demand that the final status negotiations include a
definite closure of the file on the refugee subject. This covers
two basic issues: the future of the refugees and the refugee camps.
It will demand that both UNRWA and the camps are dismantled, once a
final solution is reached. The Palestinians will not be able to
comply with both these demands unless the refugees themselves
accept them. Will they demand actual return? Will they be satisfied
with return to the Palestinian state? Or will they accept
integration into their host country? Any agreement must provide the
refugees with these choices.
The Time Frame for Implementation
The five issues dealt with above will require an agreement on the
timing of their implementation, as well as on the payment of
compensation, rehabilitation and "closing the file". Israel will
attempt to lengthen the waiting period for return and compensation,
while seeking speedy rehabilitation. The Palestinians, on the other
hand, will seek to expedite the implementation of all these
agreements and delay "closing the file" until they are
satisfied.
The Implementing and Supervising Parties
Finally, the negotiators will have to define who will implement
each point of the agreement. The delineation of the number of
refugees and the value of the compensation could be taken up by a
neutral international party, such as UNRWA. However, the point of
reference concerning negotiations will probably be an agreement
drawn up by the two negotiating parties.
Calling upon other Arab and international parties to participate in
the negotiating procedures will largely depend on the bilateral
Palestinian-Israeli agreement. Israel will be responsible for
recognizing its responsibility and granting permission for the
implementation of the right to return. The host countries and the
Palestinian state will deal with refugee absorption. Compensation
and rehabilitation, which will probably constitute the larger part
of the agreement, will be handed over to an international body for
supervision. Similarly an international party could deal with the
dismantlement of UNRWA, in cooperation with the Palestinian and the
host states.
Conclusion
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have avoided delving into
certain aspects of the refugee issue for a long time. Israel has
tried to disengage from all aspects other than that of absorption
of the refugees by the host states. It has not been prepared to
answer questions such as: where will the refugees return to - to
their houses and villages or to new areas? Within what timeframe?
What rights will they be granted? And what nature of citizenship or
residency will they benefit from?
The Palestinians are especially reluctant to discuss the issues of
compensation, absorption and "closing the file" as a result of
their fear that such a discussion would affect the refugees right
of return to their houses and possessions. Therefore, detailed and
documented research into the size of compensation and method of
calculation has still not been undertaken. Neither has the role of
donor countries in collecting the sums required been discussed, in
a bid to make Israel accept sole responsiblity. The Palestinians
have also avoided looking at what the future holds for Palestinians
in host countries who do not wish to exercise the right of return.
However, both Palestinians and Israelis realize there can be no
more evasion; and the party that is best prepared will be in the
most favorable negotiating position.
This paper demonstrates that the most difficult issues will be
putting the right of return into practice, absorption within the
host countries, and compensation and rehabilitation. Israel will
refuse to allow any meaningful return and will encourage absorption
within the host countries as well as working to transfer
responsibility for compensation and rehabilitation to the
international community and donor countries. As for the
Palestinians, they will work to guarantee the right of return on
principle and in practice to both the Palestinian state and, in
limited numbers, to Israel.