WHY ARE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES DIFFERENT?
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Yossi Alpher
The following article was written by Yossi Alpher, coeditor of bitterlemons.org
and bitterlemons-international.org, a former director of the Jaffee Center
for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, and a former senior adviser
to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. It is one of a series of articles
on Resolution 194, which can be found on the web at: http://www.bitterlemons.org/.
The Palestinian refugees who abandoned their homes in 1948 were casualties
of a war started by the Arab world with the objective of preventing the
creation of a Jewish state. Some of the refugees fled at their own initiative;
others were, in modern parlance, ethnically cleansed. The nascent State
of Israel was fighting a war of existential survival. It owes no apologies
for its behavior in 1948.
UNGAR 194 was adopted in 1949 with the aim of ending the new refugee
problem quickly by means of return and compensation. When you go back and
read it, it invokes a degree of moderation: if refugees agree to "live
at peace with their [Israeli] neighbors", then they "should be permitted
to do so at the earliest practicable date". There is plenty of qualifying
language here that has enabled Israel, over the years, to insist that UNGAR
194 is not feasible because we are still effectively at war.
The Palestinian national movement, for its part, has turned 194 into
a blatant demand that Israel accept the refugees' "right of return"--a
phrase neither mentioned nor implied in that resolution--as a condition
for peace. Hardline Palestinians argue that Israel must allow millions
of refugees to inundate the country, thereby in effect compromising its
status as a Jewish state and negating UNGAR 181, which explicitly created
"Jewish and Arab states" in Mandatory Palestine. Moderate Palestinians
insist that ways can be found to reassure Israel that only a small portion
of the refugees would actually return. But they too are very insistent
that Israel at least recognize the "right" of all refugees to return.
In other words, for moderate Palestinians an acceptable final status
peace agreement
would involve a relatively symbolic return of, say, tens of thousands
of refugees, coupled with agreed language regarding UNGAR 194 that could
be understood by the Palestinian national movement as Israeli acknowledgement
of guilt, or blame, or shame, for having created the refugee problem in
the first place. Many Israelis understand this as a demand that Palestinians
be awarded psychological compensation in the form of an Israeli admission
that Israel was "born in sin"--that Palestinians were "right" and Israel
"wrong" in 1948. That is not what UNGAR 194 is all about. That is not what
Israel is all about. This cannot and must not be the basis for peace.
This set of Palestinian demands relies on a remarkable Arab achievement
regarding the Palestinian refugees over the past 50 years. Not only has
UNGAR 194 been distorted beyond recognition in the Arab narrative, but
Palestinian refugees have been awarded their own unique UN agency, UNRWA
(United Nations Relief Works Agency), while all the rest of the world's
refugees make do with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
Further, statutes have been promulgated by UNRWA to ensure that refugee
status is passed on from generation to generation, to eternity. Thus the
Palestinian refugee problem grows exponentially with every passing year.
With a fifth generation of Palestinian refugees upon us, and factoring
in intermarriage between refugee and non-refugee Palestinians, we are seemingly
guaranteed that this problem will never be resolved because virtually all
Palestinians will soon be able to claim refugee and "return" status. Nowhere
else in the world has a refugee problem been treated, or mistreated, this
way.
There are a few Palestinians who recognize the absurdity of the Palestinian
right of return demands. But in the Palestinian mainstream, generations
of Palestinians have been educated on the concept that Israel will indeed
eventually recognize the right of return and repatriate those refugees
who so desire. Thus the refugee issue has become perhaps the single most
difficult obstacle to peace.
I can conceive of one possible compromise position that might somehow,
at some point, be useful in reaching agreement on the refugee issue. Israel
would reiterate categorically that it rejects the right of return. But
in the spirit of UNGAR 194, it would offer to repatriate those original
refugees, i.e., Palestinians who themselves left the country in 1948, who
wish to spend their last years in Israel and are prepared to do so in a
spirit of peace. No extended families-only the original refugees themselves,
all at least 56 years old, who would number between a few thousand and
a few tens of thousands.
Palestinians could, and hopefully would, interpret this as a humanitarian
gesture that goes to the core of their grievance. Israelis could claim
to be faithful to the original intent of UNGAR 194, without in any way
validating the Palestinian narrative regarding 1948 or the Palestinian
interpretation of UNGAR 194, both of which are antithetical to the spirit
of a genuine two state solution and to reconciliation between the two peoples.
If we cannot invoke a compromise of this nature regarding UNGAR 194
and the right of return, I fear we will remain far from an agreed end to
this conflict.
Published 27/9/2004 (c) bitterlemons.org
_______________________________
Jewish Council for Public Affairs www.jewishpublicaffairs.org
September 29, 2004
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a