Palestine: The right of return is alive and well

["glr" <glr.y@iol.it>]

     Data: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:31:05 -0500
       Da: "Zahi Damuni" <zdamuni@msn.com>
  Oggetto: Jordan Times:The Right of Return is Alive and well

Jordan Times http://jordantimes.com/Thu/region/region1.htm

The right of return is alive and well
By Salman Abu Sitta

TWO COMPLEMENTARY words have become an integral part of the Palestinian
narrative for the last 53 years: Al Nakba and the right of return. They
represent two sides of the same coin: one is the original sin and the other is
the atonement for it.

Al Nakba is the largest, most carefully planned and longest ethnic cleansing
operation in modern history. The population of 530 towns and villages have been
expelled in 1948, removing 85 per cent of the Palestinians in the land that
became Israel. Those who did not suffer this fate in the remaining part of
Palestine are now in the grip of the most brutal, longest and only occupation in
the world.

The Palestinians' determination to hold on to their right of return during
many years of unparalleled adversity is unique. Hence, the Israeli
indefatigable efforts to undermine it. Their arguments have remained the
same since the Provisional Government of Israel, buoyed by the conquest of
vast territory, decided in June 1948 to declare publicly its intention to
deny the return of the refugees by all means. The first victim of this
policy, apart from the refugees themselves, was the assassinated Count Volke
Bernadotte, whose political "will" became the famous Resolution 194 (III), para
11 of Dec. 11, 1948, significantly one day after the promulgation of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

On the ground, Israel expelled the refugees, committed massacres, shot the
returnees ("infiltrators"), destroyed the villages, burned the crops,
imported immigrants and confiscated refugee property (92 per cent of
Israel).

In the propaganda arena, Israel created new myths ("Palestine is a land
without people"), such as: the return is not possible, the boundaries are
lost, the country is full and the return will pollute "the Jewish character" of
the state. None of these myths stand serious scrutiny or can be accepted as
legitimate reasons for the denial of human rights.

In the legal interpretation of Resolution 194, attempts are made to
undermine it by calling it a "recommendation" or casting doubts on the
meaning of "country" and "home". Without serious examination of these
claims, or under the guise of "pragmatism", some Palestinian officials and
academics adopted these Israeli views. Free exchange of ideas is highly
recommended. But undermining inalienable rights is not.

The much-publicised views of Sari Nusseibeh, first presented with an Israeli
Likud co-author, Mark Heller, ten years ago, can be summed up as follows: The
"recognised" right of return can be fulfilled by the "return" of the refugees to
the new state of Palestine (definition unknown). The Palestinians should be
citizens of their own (ethnic) state and the Israelis of their own (Jewish)
state.

This confuses the concept of sovereignty over a territory, which is
political and negotiable, and the right of return, which is an inalienable
right and has nothing to do with the territory in question. The two are
entirely unrelated. Further, there is no meaning in international law of a
"Jewish" state or a Jewish people. The Partition Plan of 1947 (Resolution
181), on whose basis the state of Israel was declared, clearly rejects this
concept and stipulates, in chapters 2 and 3, the protection of the full
political and civil rights of the Arab "minority" in the Jewish state and vice
versa. The state should protect all its citizens, whoever they may be. But
Israel declares itself to be the state of those who are not its citizens (the
Jews abroad) and not the state of its citizens (Palestinians in Israel). This
racist concept is contrary to international law and cannot be accepted.

Doubts cast on the validity of Resolution 194 are a waste of time. The
predominant legal opinion supports it. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is not
an invention; it is an application of international law. That is why it has been
confirmed by the UN 135 times, a unique case in UN history. It is also derived
from the UDHR and the European, American and African similar conventions. It is
also derived from the sanctity of private ownership which cannot be extinguished
by passage of time, occupation or sovereignty.

Contrary to an erstwhile misconception, the resolution, in line with the
Compensation Law, calls for the return and (not or) compensation; the latter
depends on the loss and damage with or without return.

Resolution 242 never eliminated Resolution 194. Evidence is clear from
continuous reference to it up to the last General Assembly in
November-December 2001. The reference in 242, which is dedicated only to the
1967 war effects, to "a just resolution of the refugee question", simply refers
the matter to existing resolutions on the issue and to international law.

A Jordan Times contributor raised, on Dec. 30, 2001, the point, also raised by
the Israelis, that the Arabs voted against Resolution 194. One needs to know why
and how.

The Arab (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen - Jordan is not
mentioned) and the Soviet block voted against the whole resolution (not
paragraph 11 - the right of return) because the package contains many
ambiguous and unacceptable terms.

Resolution 194 contains 15 paragraphs, of which paragraph 11 refers to the
refugees' return in a comprehensive plan of 3 elements: 1) to allow them to
return and be compensated; 2) to provide welfare to refugees, later provided by
UNRWA; and 3) to facilitate their repatriation and rehabilitation.

Other clauses refer to the internationalisation of Jerusalem, "economic
development of the area" with vague and ill-defined terms of reference for
CCP. Nothing was said about the then recent (October-November 1948) Israeli new
conquest which increased the occupied land from 25 per cent to 60 per cent of
Israel's area. The general context of the resolution appeared to support the
partition resolution (already rejected by the Arabs because it allocates 54 per
cent of the country to the Jewish minority which controlled only 6 per cent of
Palestine), but, worse still, without any specific boundaries for Israel, which
implied condoning Israeli unlimited expansion.

The Arabs never rejected paragraph 11, as evidenced by the proceeding at
Lausanne in 1949. In fact, the Arabs accepted Israel as a state at the time, a
major and rarely emphasised concession, provided that, first, refugees must
return to their homes. The Lausanne Protocol, signed on May 12, 1949, stated
this clearly and had an annex of the Partition Plan of 1947 as the basis of
discussion. As American diplomatic despatches and the Record of the Meeting of
May 12, 1949, indicate, the Arabs' prerequisite for recognising Israel is the
return of the refugees. The only exception, according to these despatches (see
Burdett, Feb. 12, 1949, FRUS 1949, pp. 744-746), was Jordan, which accepted to
settle the refugees on its territory, but asked Israel to withdraw from a bigger
territory in Palestine to be able to settle more refugees.

However, the whole question of Arab voting on Resolution 194 is moot. One
can ask: So what? The right of return is an individual right which can only be
surrendered by the individual himself. Through extension to self-determination,
it is a collective right.

As to the international humanitarian law about the treatment of civilians in
time of war, it is applicable to Al Nakba and to the present-day occupation of
the West Bank and Gaza. The threat of applying the Rome Statute of 1998, which
treats Jewish settlers, Israeli army officers and officials of the government of
Israel as war criminals, should, when applied, be a serious deterrent to Israeli
atrocities.

In the final analysis, the right of return remains the guiding light of the
refugees with or without UN resolutions.

The writer is researcher on the refugees and president of Palestine Land
Society, London. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.


-----------------------------------------------------------end