The revolutionary road to 194
Source: Ha'aretz.
by Akiva Eldar
Monday, July 22, 2002 Av 13, 5762
Israel Time: 06:22 (GMT+3)
A poll recently requested by the School of Education
at Tel Aviv University shows that it was the violence
that broke out in September 2000 far more than
the failure at Camp David that eroded Israeli faith
in the peace process (85 percent and 58 percent,
respectively). The disappointment is based on the
belief that Ehud Barak proposed a generous division
of the Greater Land of Israel, meaning a withdrawal
to the 1967 borders accompanied by minor border corrections.
Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, demanded Israel
recognize the right of return - in other words,
the elimination of the State of Israel. Without getting
into the controversy about the Camp David narrative,
it can be stated that Greater Palestine is no longer
an obstacle to the division of the Greater Land
of Israel.
If the political negotiations were to reopen today,
the Israeli side would likely find the Arab League's
Beirut decision from March - also known as the Saudi
initiative - on the table. Presumably, alongside
it Israel would find Palestinian Minister Nabil Sha'ath's
non-paper, which he presented last month to the American
administration. Neither document mentions a demand
for Israel to recognize the right of return nor its
implementation. They make do with a demand for "a
just solution." Arab state leaders and the Palestinians
demand the solution be based on the United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 194 from 1948. The Palestinian
proposal adds the solution should be agreed on by
both sides.
This principle was set at the Taba talks in early
2001. Right -wingers and commentators claim that
accepting 194 brings the refugees into Israel through
the back door, if not the front door. The decision,
which refers to the establishment of a reconciliation
committee and the principles for a solution to the
refugee problem, says, "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 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."
Seemingly, that means granting the right of return
to all 3.5 million refugees (according to UNWRA statistics),
and therefore there's been no change in the Arab
and Palestinian position. But surprisingly, even
the Israeli Foreign Ministry rejects that interpretation.
On its Web site, the ministry has long carried a
legal analysis that unequivocally states there is
no international treaty or UN decision - including
194 - that determines the Palestinians have the right
of return to the sovereign territory of the State
of Israel.
Prof. Ruth Lapidoth of Hebrew University, former
legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry and the Israeli
representative to the arbitration over Taba with
the Egyptians, writes that 194 does not recognize "the
right" but recommends allowing Palestinians who want,
to return. The choice of the term "should" in the
context of that permission and not "shall" indicates,
she says, that this is only a noncommittal recommendation.
She also says the UN covenant does not grant the
General Assembly to make any operative decision,
other than budgetary and internal organizational
matters. According to her interpretation, the references
in 194 to principles of international law or justice
only deal with the matter of compensation and not
with the right of return.
Presumably there will be Palestinians - and Israelis
- for whom the fact that Prof. Lapidoth is in the
front rank of international jurists is irrelevant
to their ideological convictions. But that doesn't
mitigate from the important breakthrough in the Arab
and Palestinian proposals to trade in their demand
that Israel recognize the right of return, for UN
General Assembly Resolution 194. The Arab interpretation
of UN Security Council Resolution 242 - withdrawal
from all the territories - has never prevented any
Israeli government from turning UNSCR 242 into a
cornerstone of the solution of the conflict over
the occupied territories. Hopefully, when we finally
have time to deal with something other than the democratic
reforms, maybe we'll notice there's been a quiet
(and silenced?) revolution in the Land of Greater
Palestine.
|