REFUGEES OR CITIZENS:
THE CORNERSTONE OF MIDDLE EAST PEACE
Source: speaking notes, Canadian International Development
Agency (Hull), 18 June 1997. by Donna
E. Arzt
Let me begin by attempting to demonstrate why the
refugee question -- which is one of the "final
status" negotiation topics -- is necessarily
the cornerstone of any just and comprehensive peace
agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. Then
I will walk through some of the main principles, proposals
and conclusions presented in my book, Refugees into
Citizens: Palestinians and the End of the Arab-Israeli
Conflict (Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1997).
Let's start with three basic facts:
FIRST: With between three and four million refugees
out of a total Palestinian population of over 6.3
million, Palestinian refugees are the world's largest
concentration of stateless persons.
SECOND: Now that we're approaching the 50th anniversary
of the 1948 dispersal of Palestinians, they are the
world's oldest refugee community.
AND THIRD: Seventy percent of all Palestinians live
outside of the West Bank and Gaza. Therefore, Oslo
I, Oslo II and the related agreements up to and including
the recent Hebron agreement, do not even begin to
address their needs and concerns.
That is why virtually anyone who looks at the conflict
honestly -- whether it's a Palestinian analyst working
with the Palestinian delegation to the multilateral
Refugee Working Group such as Salim Tamari, or an
Israeli academic and military official such as General
Shlomo Gazit -- recognizes that there is no hope for
a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the
Arab-Israeli conflict without a during and regionally
inclusive resolution of the refugee question. In other
words, for the final peace agreement to have legitimacy
and therefore permanent stability, it has to achieve
a satisfactory status for the refugees.
But why has this topic been so often ignored, or
if mentioned, referred to as a "taboo"?
Why, when the media reports on the issues yet to be
negotiated in the final status round of talks, do
we hear about "Jerusalem, the settlements, the
borders, security," but often, no mention of
"the refugees"? Why are there over 80 different,
publicly floated proposals on what to do about Jerusalem,
but few well known proposals (other than the notorious
"transfer" plans of the Israeli right-wing)
about the refugees?
Understanding why this is so actually provides some
clues as to how to solve the question. Israelis of
almost all political and ideological persuasions have
viewed the very idea of the return of Palestinian
refugees as, first of all, a demographic threat, secondly,
a security threat, and third, an existential threat
to Israel's identity as a refuge for Jewish refugees.
If not all of these, then at least a juridical and
financial nightmare, on the assumption that over three
million refugees would turn up on Israeli doorsteps,
either demanding their houses back or making claims
for vast amounts of compensation. Even an Israeli
as far to the left as Shulamit Aloni has put her foot
down and declared, "No, not even a single Palestinian
can return to the pre-1967 borders." (Although
the Israeli Labor Party has recently changed its platform
to accept Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank
and Gaza, it has not endorsed any Palestinian "right
of return." Moreover, the Beilin-Eytan plan leaked
in January has specifically rejected it.) For Israelis,
it has been treated as heresy to even contemplate
the issue.
Ironically, even for the Palestinian Authority,
the issue of refugee return has been given short shrift,
relegated to the bottom of their lists of negotiation
objectives. For two reasons, primarily: First, because
the Oslo process has shifted the PLO's traditional
constituency, the Palestinian diaspora, to the sidelines
in favor of the more centralized locales of the West
Bank and Gaza, and directed its immediate concern
to building a governing apparatus there. The refugees
have been lost in the shuffle. But secondly, it is
because the Palestinians are not yet ready to acknowledge
formally and officially -- even though Palestinian
moderates, speaking for themselves, have done it --
that in practical terms, not every refugee will be
able to return home. Most still use the language of
absolute ultimatums. Nevertheless, because the PLO
has already, for nine years now, accepted Israel's
right to exist within its pre-1967 borders, and has
only sought statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, it
has more or less acknowledged that actual and complete
"return" is not possible. In other words,
the stage has been set for substituting the collective
right to statehood for the aggregate of millions of
individuals returning to their homes. Because the
rejectionist camps on both sides have interfered with
Oslo's original timetable for negotiating the refugee
question, the Palestinians have not reached the point
where they can collectively acknowledge their willingness
to compromise.
To the contrary, whenever there is a public discussion
of this issue, it almost immediately degenerates into
a heated argument over who caused the initial flight
of the refugees, into fights over numbers and definitions,
and into emotional, politicized rhetoric using legal-sounding
terminology and authorities that are usually misused,
misquoted or taken out-of-context.
My book tries to cut through this rhetorical, impassioned
thicket by separating out the historical and demographic
facts that can be reasonably agreed on from those
that cannot and probably never will, and to deconstruct
the legal standards and authorities so as to identify
those that are helpful and those that are not. I offer
some suggested guidelines, targets and procedures,
not because I think I have the definitive solution
but simply to start the dialogue going on realistic
terms. Only when the wider community -- the regional
media, the academics, the Western governments and
NGOs and others who support the peace process -- begins
to talk about the refugee question will the actual
negotiators be comfortable broaching it. This process
must begin now so that the cornerstone of the peace
process, the refugee issue, can be on the table before
the entire process disintegrates into a morass of
violence, demoralization and disingenuousness.
Obviously, the final peace agreement will be a package
of compromises on many issues, such as security, borders,
forms of sovereignty, etc. But if we allow the refugee
question to be relegated to the very end of the negotiations,
after all these other issues are resolved, the diaspora
Palestinians will lose patience and reject the legitimacy
of the negotiation process. This has all but already
happened with the refugee community in Lebanon.
What is my starting point?
FIRST, that comfort and stability for any long-term
refugee population can only come through citizenship,
because citizenship signifies dignity, inclusion,
rights and obligations.
SECOND, that even though the Palestinian refugee
crisis is unique in its size and longetivity, it is
not so sui generis that it cannot profit from looking
at how other refugee crises have been resolved and
what other contexts have produced in the form of human
rights guidelines. So I look at the experience of
UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, and other IGOs and NGOs
in other regions of the world.
THIRD, what I call the four "principles of
peace":
- Discussion of the issue must be forward, not
backward-looking, so that age-old battles over fault
and causes of dislocation of the Palestinians will
not be relitigated.
- Wherever possible, obligations of the parties
to the negotiations must be made reciprocal and
regionally balanced.
- International normalcy, that is, how responsible,
peaceful states and their citizens are expected
to behave and interact, should be the standard.
- The parties must recognize that each people,
both Palestinians and Israelis, has equal rights
to land, statehood, security and survival.
The centerpiece of the book is Chapter Four's blueprint
for permanent absorption of Palestinians refugees,
offered as a catalyst for jump-starting discussions
about their future. (It is available on the Palestinian
Refugee Research Net website.) While the book does
not take a formal position on Palestinian statehood,
I acknowledge that sovereignty in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip is more likely than semi-autonomy to generate
widespread Palestinian approval for compromises short
of full repatriation of the refugees to the pre-1967
borders of Israel.
Because international law requires that population
transfers be effectuated on an orderly, humane and
-- most importantly -- a voluntary basis, the book
offers a plan with the following structural components:
ABSORPTION TARGETS. Each
of the Middle Eastern parties participating in the
final peace treaty negotiations -- which will include
Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Egypt and
hopefully, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab states --
as well as any Western states which offer to participate,
will absorb an optimal ("target") number
of refugee families which will neither be demographically,
politically nor economically disruptive to it or to
neighboring states. This caveat is particularly important
in the West Bank and Gaza, the stability of which
would be undermined by an overly rapid flood of immigrants.
During a necessary transitional period, in which the
refugees will move in gradual waves rather than in
one large-scale rush, housing, jobs and infrastructure
can be readied and disorder avoided.
Proposed "absorption targets" include:
|
1996
Palestinian Population |
Target
for Year 2005 |
Comment |
WEST
BANK |
1,200,000
|
2,400,000 |
largest |
GAZA |
880,000 |
450,000 |
reduce over-crowding |
JORDAN |
1,832,000 |
2,000,000 |
nat. inc. only |
LEBANON |
372,700 |
75,000 |
(60,000 now citizens) |
SYRIA |
352,100 |
400,000 |
some Leb. |
ISRAEL |
840,000 |
1,000,000 |
nat. inc. plus 75,000
same as Leb. (cf. Lausanne Conf.1949) |
OTHER
MIDDLE EAST |
446,600 |
965,000 |
double |
NON
MID-EAST STATES |
452,000 |
900,000 |
double |
TOTAL |
6,375,800 |
8,265,000 |
|
Note that the number who are to be allowed to return
to Israel is balanced with the number who will stay
in Lebanon, whose government has repeatedly announced
that it wants all of the refugees to leave. The figure
of 75,000, though surely a controversial one for Israelis,
is actually about the same number that the Israeli
government agreed to reabsorb in 1949. Given the small
number of Jews living there at that time, and the
smaller population of Palestinians then, 75,000 was
a much greater relative percentage than it is today.
Because international law (including UN General Assembly
Resolution 194) allows a state to use national security
as a criterion for return of refugees, Israel can
insist that the 75,000 who return (possibly the oldest
living generation of Palestinians, the ones who retain
personal memories before 1948), will not engage in
terrorist acts. Moreover, this symbolic act of compromise
by Israel will facilitate getting Syria, Lebanon and
other Arab states to grant citizenship to more Palestinians
and permanently absorb an optimal number as well.
CHOICE, COMPENSATION AND PASSPORTS.
All refugees will be offered a fully informed, written
choice of available residential and compensation options,
including absorption in a state in the region, return
to the Palestinian territory in the West Bank and
Gaza, or, if qualified (according to criteria such
as family reunification and a commitment to live in
peace with their Jewish neighbors), return to their
ancestral home in Israel. Each family will, in writing,
rank its residential preferences, which will then
be accommodated according to available spots within
the regional absorption targets.
Compensation (either in the form of a "reintegration
allowance" or real property) for those who are
eligible but who do not return to Israel, will be
awarded out of a fund contributed to jointly, and
without acknowledgement of fault, by Israel, Arab
states, and other countries, including those in the
West which are unable to absorb significant numbers
of refugees. In addition, all Palestinians, no matter
where they reside, will be offered a Palestinian passport
which will declare their Palestinian nationality and
enable them to visit and/or work in the West Bank
and Gaza if they choose. Such a national passport
"would express for every holder the emotional
and symbolic bond that unites the Palestinian people."
CITIZENSHIP AND REHABILITATION.
In addition to Palestinian passports, the refugees
will be offered citizenship and full protection of
their human rights in each of the absorption states,
including Israel, to which they go. Thus, anyone who
does not become absorbed in the West Bank or Gaza
will be eligible for dual nationality (or dual citizenship,
if the territories become an independent sovereign
state) both as Palestinians and as citizens of their
country of residence. The resettled refugees will
also receive rehabilitative services, including, health
care, education and job training, in order to encourage
their full social, political and economic integration.
These services will be supported by development funds
awarded to the countries on the basis of their willingness
to absorb optimal target populations and administered
with the assistance of U.N. agencies and relevant
non-governmental relief organizations.
TRANSITIONAL INSTITUTIONS:
A number of regionally balanced tribunals and commissions
will be created to implement this program, hearing
claims and appeals. After an agreed period of time,
all additional claims will be extinguished.
To conclude, the rhetorical war, as well as the war
of violence, has to come to an end. Each side must
respect the other side's passions, lost lives, indignities
and pain from the past, and then move on. Retribution
is not going to achieve peace. Only pragmatism will.
Thank you.
Donna E. Arzt
Associate Professor of Law
Syracuse University College of Law
Syracuse, N.Y. 13244 USA
dearzt@law.syr.edu
Tel. 315-443-2401
Fax 315-443-5394
"Justice, justice thou shalt pursue." -
Deut. 16:20 |