Fw: Palestine: The right of return is alive and well

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg@tin.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.