I AM A JEW (PART IX - The Palestinian Diaspora & The Right of Return)

As the title shows this is the ninth part (actually the 10^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the titles: "I AM A JEW (Part I)," "I AM A JEW (Part II)," "I AM A JEW (Part III)," "I AM A JEW (Special Bulletin)," "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)," "I AM A JEW (Part V - Gaza Is A Huge Prison)," "I AM A JEW (PART VI - The Palestinians)," "I AM A JEW (PART VII - A Defense of Israel’s Policies and a Rebuttal)" and "I AM A JEW (PART VIII - Hamas & Likud)."

In talking about a disposition of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict it has consistently been made to appear that the sticking point to a resolution is the Right of Return of Palestinians to Israel, thereby endangering, if not totally destroying, the character of Israel as a Jewish state. It is a phony issue!

To be sure United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which was adopted on December 11, 1948 sets forth in paragraph 11:

…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; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

It has been argued that if all the refugees who fled the area that is now Israel and their descendants, now numbering “more than 1.5 million individuals” were to return to Israel, which according to the The Jewish Virtual Library has a total population of 8,252,500 (See here) it would destroy the character of the Jewish state. But would it? Of those 8,252,500, 6,186,100 are Jewish. Only 1,709,900 are Arabs. So that even if all the Arab refugees were to be allowed to return, the Arab population of Israel would still only amount to a little over 2,200,000, just over a quarter of the Jewish population, hardly a threat to the Jewish character of the Israeli state. The problem obviously becomes much greater if we accept the UN definition (See here) that:

…the legal status of refugee (is) something that can be inherited

which means that:

today it classifies more than 6.6 million Palestinians as refugees.

which makes the possibility of resettlement in Israel impossible. But of course if we limit the Right of Return to Israel as being limited only to those who in fact fled, excluding their descendants, we would be looking at an elderly easily manageable population.

But the fact is that most Palestinian Arab refugees do not want to return to Israel. According to an article in Time magazine (See here) in 2003 a:

…researcher managed to broach the subject, interviewing 4,500 refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. Only 10% said they would live in Israel if given the option, while 54% opted for monetary compensation and a home on the West Bank or Gaza. The other third said they would prefer to live in other countries, or rejected the terms described.

So the issue of the Right of Return is at best a theoretical one, and at worst a straw man, easily knocked down.

The Israeli government makes it appear that his is the main stumbling block to a settlement, but as can be seen it is not really a problem, nor is it a legitimate bone of contention.

Furthermore, Israel rejects the UN resolution of 1948 as being a manifestation of the UN’s anti Israel bias, but its very existence stems from that same body's resolution 181 of November 1947 on which the very establishment of the Israeli State was founded. How can Israel base its legitimacy on the one hand on the UN resolution and on the other reject another passed soon after. It is difficult to avoid calling that chutzpah, or to give its rejection any credence.

While speaking about the legitimacy of Israel within the 1948 borders stemming from the 1947 resolution, it is difficult to find legitimacy in the generally accepted 1967 borders, which the UN never sanctioned. Israel’s claim to these borders stem from military conquest, albeit defensive wars. It is argued that territory acquired in defensive wars may be legitimately kept, (See here) but that is true, according to this concept, only until a peace treaty is agreed upon, and does not justify it’s arbitrary and unilateral permanent annexation. If defensive wars were a justification for the occupation and annexation of territory, then Germany would have been justified in its occupation and annexation of France, for it was France that declared war on Germany. Furthermore, the Allies set the precedence on the acquisition of territory after the end of a victorious war, by not taking any territory from the defeated nations, settling instead for a period of occupation, while helping the defeated nations rebuild. That precedence should be binding on Israel.

But the problem of the Palestinian diaspora is real and cannot be ignored by the International community or by Israel.

It is not acceptable either for Israel or the International community to ignore the plight of the Palestinian diaspora, which is far worse than the Jewish diaspora, before the advent of the Nazis ever was. Jews in Germany for example were fully assimilated, and lived full and prosperous lives, and while anti-Semitism there and in other countries including the US was ever present, the plight of Jews in their diaspora was never as desperate as those of the Palestinians.

The fact is that most of the displaced Palestinians have been denied the normal lives of people everywhere and are forced to live in refugee camps without permanent homes and without the right of citizenship.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) is trying to take care of these refugees but they are underfunded and understaffed. They provide assistance and protection for
 some 5 million Palestinian refugees. (See here)

I quote from their website:

Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” 

UNRWA services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

 Nearly one-third of the registered Palestine refugees, more than 1.5 million individuals, live in 58 recognized Palestine refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

A Palestine refugee camp is defined as a plot of land placed at the disposal of UNRWA by the host government to accommodate Palestine refugees and set up facilities to cater to their needs. Areas not designated as such and are not recognized as camps. However, UNRWA also maintains schools, health centres and distribution centres in areas outside the recognized camps where Palestine refugees are concentrated, such as Yarmouk, near Damascus. 

The plots of land on which the recognized camps were set up are either state land or, in most cases, land leased by the host government from local landowners. This means that the refugees in camps do not 'own' the land on which their shelters were built, but have the right to 'use' the land for a residence. 

Socioeconomic conditions in the camps are generally poor, with high population density, cramped living conditions and inadequate basic infrastructure such as roads and sewers.

 UNRWA's responsibility in the camps is limited to providing services and administering its installations. The Agency does not own, administer or police the camps, as this is the responsibility of the host authorities.

UNRWA has a camp services office in each camp, which the residents visit to update their records or to raise issues relating to Agency services with the Camp Services Officer (CSO). The CSO, in turn, refers refugee concerns and petitions to the UNRWA administration in the area in which the camp is located. 

In the aftermath of the hostilities of June 1967 and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, ten camps were established to accommodate a new wave of displaced persons, both refugees and non-refugees.

 The remaining two thirds of registered Palestine refugees live in and around the cities and towns of the host countries, and in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, often in the environs of official camps. While most of UNRWA's installations such as schools and health centres are located in the Palestine refugee camps, a number are outside; all of the Agency’s services are available to all registered Palestine refugees, including those who do not live in the camps.

Unlike the Jewish diaspora, where Jews were usually citizens of the countries in which they lived, Palestinians are living in refugee camps and are living in them generation after generation. (For a list of the camps and their populations see here)

Israel along with the International community has an obligation to end their refugee status and to allow them, and in fact help them, to resettle in permanent homes with rights of citizenship in their own sovereign country.

Jews the world over, Americans of all persuasions, and the world community cannot settle for less. The endless land grabs by Israel and the endless occupation must end. NOTHING LESS WILL DO.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.