Postscript: The Refugees under the Likud
Source: FOFOGNET Digest, 21 June 1996.
by Salim Tamari, Institute
of Jerusalem Studies
The original essay[*] was finished before the Likud's
ascension to power and the formation of the Netanyahu
government in June 1996. Since then the new government
guidelines, which declared itself against a Palestinian
state, against the 'right of return', and against
sharing Jerusalem with its Arab inhabitants, was made
public when Netanyahu presented his cabinet to the
Knesset on June 17.
Of the major three themes that confront the Palestinians
in the final status negotiations, the fate of refugees
is the least likely to be affected by the Likud victory.
The reason for that, in my estimate, is not because
Netanyahu's right wing coalition is likely to be so
intransigent, but because Labour was basically unyielding
on the issue of refugees and displaced persons.
On both questions of Jerusalem and Settlements there
was, and continues to be, a basic divergence in the
broad views of Labour and Likud. These divergences
seem to emanate from the willingness of both Peres
and the late Prime Minister Rabin to consider the
possibility of statehood for the Palestinians, and
Netanyahu's refusal to concede sovereignty. On the
issue of refugees however, there seems to be a consensus
among both Likud and Labour to reject any substantive
concessions towards the Palestinians. One would have
thought that Labour would have made a distinction
between refugees of 1948 and displaced persons of
1967 since the latter would return only to the West
Bank and Gaza. But the course of negotiations, as
discussed above, show that Labour was as inflexible
on the issue of DPs as they were on refugees. This
was apparent during the election campaign of the summer
of 1967 and during public pronouncements during the
campaign. While concessions on Jerusalem and settlements
were themes in which the right accused Labour of having
betrayed the national trust, on the theme of refugees
was no such attitude. At least it was much more subdued.
There is an ideological explanation for this hardening
of attitudes. In Israel there is a general fear of
Palestinian Arabs making claims to their losses in
1948. Since there is a substantial amount of urban
Jewish areas that are built on abandoned refugee property,
and an even larger number of rural settlments that
were established over destroyed Palestinian villages,
Israelis of all persuations feel that even minor concessions
to refugee claims would lead to a general questioning
of Jewish rights in Eretz Yisrael. Some Israeli authors,
such as Gazit, would distinguish between restoring
rights to refugees in the West Bank and Gaza, from
claims made on properties inside the coastal areas.
But such a distinction is not widely shared. Many
believe that once Israel begins to admit refugees
to PNA areas (ie to the West Bank and Gaza), a pandora's
box of historic claims and rights would follow. At
the heart of this argument is the moral issue of legitimacy
of the Israeli state which the successive peace agreements
do not seem to have resolved.
An indicator of this consensus between right and
'left' in Israel emerged in the continuity in the
team appointed by Labour following their electoral
victory in 1992. Unlike the changes witnessed in the
bilateral teams which negotiated the transfer of authority
to the Palestinians, the teams which negotiated multi-lateral
issues, particularly refugees remained basically the
same. It is still too early to tell if there will
be such a continuity with the Netanyahu appointments.
One can gain an insigt into the new government's attitude
towards refugees from the guidelines presented to
the Knesset on the 17th of June 1996: "...the
government will oppose the establishment of a Palestinian
state or any foreign sovereignty West of the Jordan
River, and will oppose the 'right of return' of Arab
populations to any part of the land of Israel West
of the River Jordan". Presumably the 'right of
return' here refers to both displaced persons and
refugees, but that remains to be seen.
I would suggest that in the coming period the issue
of refugees will be further marginalized and neglected
by the Israeli negotiators until it becomes an explosive
and destablizing issue in the relations between Israel
and the Palestinians, as well as between the PNA and
the Palestinian diaspora. I hope I will be proven
wrong.
Salim Tamari
June 17, 1996
[*] refers to 'The Future of Refugees in Final Status
Negotiations', which will be published by IPS in Beirut
and Washington next month. |