We Israelis need a scarecrow to frighten ourselves, one frightening enough to pumpadrenaline into our national bloodstream. Otherwise, it seems, we cannot function.
Once it was the Palestinian charter. Very few Palestinians ever read it, even fewerremembered what it said, but we compelled the Palestinians to abolish its paragraphs in asolemn ceremony. Who remembers it today? But since this scarecrow was laid to rest, there is aneed for a replacement.
The new scarecrow is the “Right of Return”. Not as a practical problem, to be dealt with inrational terms, but as a hair-raising monster: now the Palestinians’ sinister design hasbeen revealed! They want to eliminate Israel by this terrible ploy! The want to throw us intothe sea!
The Right of Return has again widened the abyss, which seemed to have been narrowed to a rift. Weare frightened again. The end of our state! The end of the vision of generations! A secondHolocaust!
It seems that the abyss is unbridgeable. The Arabs demand that each and every Palestinianrefugee return to his home and land in Israel. The Israelis staunchly object to the return ofeven one single refugee. On both sides, everything or nothing. There goes the peace.
In the following lines I shall try to show that the scarecrow is indeed a scarecrow; that eventhis painful problem can be resolved; that a fair compromise can even lead to a historicconciliation.
The Roots of the Conflict
The refugee problem arouses such deep emotions because it touches the root of the conflictbetween to two peoples.
The conflict stems from the historic clash between two great national movements. One ofthese, Zionism, sought to establish a state for the Jews, so that, for the first time afterthousands of years, they could be masters of their own fate. In the furthering of this aim,Zionism completely ignored the population living in the country. It envisioned a homogenousnational state, according to the European model of the late 19 th century, without non-Jews,or with at least as few non-Jews as possible.
The Palestinian national movement expressed the struggle of the native Arabs for nationalfreedom and independence. It vehemently opposed the penetration of their homeland byanother people. As Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the militant Zionist leader, wrote at the time, anyother people would have reacted in the same way.
Without understanding this aspect of the conflict, the events leading to the creation of therefugee problem cannot be understood.
“Ethnic Cleansing”
In the war of 1948, the historic clash came to a head.
On the eve of the war some 1,200,000 Arabs and some 635,000 Jews lived in Palestine. During thecourse of the war, started by the Arab side to prevent the partition of the country, more thanhalf of the Palestinian people, around 750,000 persons, were uprooted. Some were driven outby the conquering Israeli army, others fled when the battle reached their homes, as civiliansdo in every war.
The 1948 war was an ethnic struggle, much like the one in Bosnia. In wars of this kind, every sidetries to set up an ethnic state by conquering as much territory as it can without the opposingpopulation. In fairness to the historical facts, it should be mentioned that the Arab sidebehaved in the same way, and in the few territories it conquered (the old city of Jerusalem, theEtzion bloc) no Jews remained in their homes.
Immediately after the war, the new State of Israel declined to allow the refugees to come backto the territories it had conquered. The Ben-Gurion government eradicated about 450abandoned Arab villages and put up Jewish settlements on their sites. The new Jewishimmigrants – many from Arab countries – were put into the abandoned houses in the Arab towns.Thus the refugee problem was created.
Resolution 194
While the war was still going on, the General Assembly of the United Nations adoptedResolution 194 of November 11, 1948. It stated that the refugees were entitled to choosebetween compensation and return to “their homes”. Israel’s refusal to abide by thisresolution may have led it to miss the opportunity – if it existed – of achieving peace with theArab world as early as 1949.
In the 1967 war, some events repeated themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians weredriven out, by force or intimidation, from areas near the Jordan river (the huge Jerichorefugee camps) and near the Green Line (the Tulkarem, Kalkilia and Latrun areas).
According to official UN statistics, the number of refugees is up to 3.7 millions by now, anumber that is reasonable in view of the very high rate of natural growth. They are mostlydispersed among the countries bordering Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
Apocalypse Now
On the Israeli side, the refugee problem aroused deep-rooted fears, stemming from the firstdays after the 1948 war. The number of Jews in the new state had not yet reached a million. Theidea, that 750 thousand Palestinian would return to Israeli territory and submerge it like adeluge aroused panic.
This apocalyptic vision has become a fixation in the Israeli national psyche. Even today,when the demographic facts are quite different, it hovers over every discussion of thisissue. In this respect, there is no difference between the “Left” and the “Right”. It is enoughto merely mention the refugee problem, for writers like Amos Oz to react like Ariel Sharon, andfor a “new historian” like Benny Morris to voice opinions similar to those of an adherent to thevery same old myths that he himself helped to debunk.
No wonder that raising the issue now is shaking many of the Israeli “peace camp” to the roots oftheir soul. “We thought that the problem had gone away,” many of them exclaim angrily,accusing the Palestinians of fraud, as if they had suddenly sprung earth-shatteringdemands, whereas until now they had presented only “simple” problems, like theestablishment of a Palestinian state, borders and settlements.
This attests to an abysmal lack of understanding. The Right of Return expresses the very coreof the Palestinian national ethos. It is anchored in the memories of the Nakba, thePalestinian catastrophe of 1948, and the feeling that a historic injustice was committedagainst the Palestinian people. Ignoring this feeling of injustice makes it impossible tounderstand the Palestinian struggle, past and present.
Everyone who really tried to bring about peace and conciliation between the two peoples knewall the time that the refugee problem is dormant, like a sleeping lion who can wake up anyminute. The hope was that this moment could be postponed until after the other problems couldbe resolved, and both sides could start healing this wound in a more congenial atmosphere. Thehope was that after a good measure of mutual trust could be created, a rational approach wouldbe possible. The Oslo Declaration of Principles of 1993 did not ignore the problem, butpostponed it to the “final status” negotiations.
The man who upset the cart was Ehud Barak. He kicked the sleeping lion in the ribs. In a typicalmixture of arrogance, ignorance, recklessness and contempt for the Arabs, he was convincedthat he could induce the Palestinians to give up the Right of Return. Therefore he demandedthat the Palestinians sign a new declaration of principles, in which they would announce the“end of the conflict”.
The moment these five words – “the end of the conflict” – were uttered in the negotiations, theRight of Return landed on the negotiating table with a bang. It should have been foreseen thatno Palestinian leader could possibly sign the “end of the conflict” without a solution to therefugee problem.
Now there is no escape from a courageous confrontation with this problem.
A “Truth Commission”
The refugee problem is multi-layered, some layers are ideological and concerned with basicprinciples, others are practical. Let’s address the ideological first.
Israel must acknowledge its historic responsibility for the creation of the problem. Inorder to facilitate the healing of the wound, such acknowledgement must be explicit.
It must be acknowledged that the creation of the refugee problem was an outcome of therealization of the Zionist endeavor to achieve a Jewish national renaissance in thiscountry. It must also be acknowledged that at least some of the refugees were driven from theirhome by force after the battle was already over, and that their return to their homes wasdenied.
I can imagine a dramatic event: the President or Prime Minister of Israel solemnly apologizesto the Palestinians for the injustice inflicted upon them in the realization of the Zionistaims, at the same time he emphasizes that these aims were mainly directed towards nationalliberation and saving millions from the Jewish tragedy in Europe.
I would go further and propose the setting up of a ”truth committee”, composed of Israeli,Palestinian and international historians, in order to investigate the events of 1948 and1967 and submit a comprehensive and agreed report that can become part of both Israeli andPalestinian school curriculum.
The Right of Return
The right of return is a basic human right and cannot be denied in our time.
A short time ago, the international community fought a war against Serbia in order toimplement the right of the Kossovars to return to their homes. It should be mentioned thatGermany gave up the right of evicted Germans to return to their homes in East Prussia, Polandand the Sudetenland, but this was the result of the deeply felt guilt of the German people forthe horrible crimes of the Nazis. The often-heard phrase “but the Arabs started the war” isirrelevant in this context.
I propose that the State of Israel recognize the Right of Return i n p r i n c i p l e, pointing outthat the implementation of the principle will come about by way of negotiation and agreement.
Palestinian Citizenship
After the ideological aspect is satisfied, it becomes possible to address the practicalaspect of the problem.
The solution of the refugee problem will coincide with the establishment of the State ofPalestine. Therefore, the first step can be the granting of Palestinian citizenship to everyPalestinian refugee, wherever he be, if the State of Palestine so decides.
For the refugees, this step will be of utmost importance, not only for symbolic, but also forvery practical reasons. Many Palestinians, who have no citizenship, are denied theprivilege of crossing borders altogether, for all others the crossing of borders entailssuffering, humiliation and harassment.
The granting of citizenship will completely change the situation and status of the refugeesin places like Lebanon, where refugees are exposed to danger.
Free Choice
A basic element of the Right of Return is the right of every single refugee to choose freelybetween return and compensation.
This is a personal right. While the recognition in principle is a collective right, itsimplementation in practice is in the realm of the individual Palestinian. In order to be ableto make his decision, he must know all the rights accruing to him: what sums will be paid to thosechoosing not to return and what possibilities are open to those who wish to return.
Every refugee has the right to compensation for properties left behind when he was uprooted,as well as for the loss of opportunities, etc. Without making any comparison between theHolocaust and the Nakba, one can learn from the German method of compensating their Jewishvictims. This will enable every refugee to decide what is good for him and his family.
The compensations, which undoubtedly will entail great sums, must be paid by aninternational fund, to which all the wealthier economies must contribute. The Palestinianscan rightfully demand this from the member-states of the United Nations who voted for thepartition of Palestine in 1947 and did not lift a finger to prevent the tragedy of the refugees.
Israelis must not delude themselves that only others will pay. The Israeli “custodian ofabsentee property” holds huge properties – buildings, lands, movable property – left behindby the refugees, and it is his duty to register and administer them.
Return to Palestine
The historic compromise between Israel and Palestine is based on the principle of “Two Statesfor Two Peoples”. The State of Palestine is designed to embody the historic personality of thePalestinian-Arab people and the State of Israel is designed to embody the historicpersonality of the Israeli-Jewish people, with the Arab citizens of Israel, who constitute afifth of all Israeli citizens, being full partners in the state.
It is clear that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel wouldcompletely change the character of the state, contrary to the intentions of its founders andmost of its citizens. It would abolish the principle of Two States for Two Peoples, on which thedemand for a Palestinian state is based.
All this leads to the conclusion that most of the refugees who opt for return will find theirplace in the State of Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they will be able to build their lifethere, subject to the laws and decisions of their government.
To absorb a large number of returnees and provide them with housing and employment, the Stateof Palestine must receive appropriate compensations from the international fund andIsrael. Also, Israel must transfer the settlements intact to the Palestinian government,after the return of the settlers to Israeli territory. When deciding upon the just andequitable division of water and other resources between Israel and Palestine, thislarge-scale absorption must also be taken into account.
If the border between Palestine and Israel will be open to the free movement of people andgoods, according to the principles of peaceful co-existence between good neighbors, theformer refugees, as Palestinian citizens, will be able to visit the places where thereforefathers lived.
Return to Israel
In order to make the healing of the psychological wounds and a historic conciliationpossible, there is no way to avoid the return of an appropriate number of refugees to the Stateof Israel. The exact number must be decided upon by an negotiation between Israel andPalestine.
This part of the plan will arouse the strongest opposition in Israel. As a matter of fact, not asingle Israeli politician or thinker has dared to propose it. The extreme opposition existsboth on the Right and the Left of the Israeli spectrum.
However, such a limited return is the natural completion of the recognition in principle ofthe Right of Return and the acceptance of responsibility for the events of the past. As we shallsee immediately, the opposition to it is irrational and an expression of old fears that have nobasis in reality.
The government of Israel recently offered to take back a few thousands of refugees (3000 werementioned) annually in the framework of “family reunification”. This reflects a mistakenattitude. Instead, it is the open return, in the framework of the Right of Return, which isnecessary as a symbolic act of conciliation. The number mentioned is, of course, ridiculous.
Nobody claims that Israel, which has just successfully absorbed a million new immigrantsfrom the former Soviet Union, is economically unable to absorb a reasonable number ofrefugees. The argument is clearly ideological and demographic: that the return of any numberof refugees will change the national-demographic cof the state.
If the irrationality of the argument needs proof, one need only mention that the extreme Rightin Israel demands the annexation of the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and is quiteready to grant Israeli citizenship to the quarter of a million Arabs living there. TheRight-wing also demands the annexation of big “settlement blocs”, which include many Arabvillages, without being unduly worried by the increase in the number of Arab citizens ofIsrael.
It is also worthwhile to remember that in 1949 the government of David Ben-Gurion and MosheSharett offered to take back 100 thousand refugees. Whatever the motives that inspired thatoffer, and even if this was merely a diplomatic maneuver, the offer is an important precedent.In relation to the Jewish population in Israel at that time, this number equals 800 thousandtoday. In relation to the number of refugees at that time, the number equals half a million now.
The decisive question is: How many can be brought back? Minimalists may speak about 100thousand, maximalists about half a million. I myself have proposed an annual quota of 50thousand for 10 years. But this is a subject for negotiations, which must be conducted in aspirit of good-will with the intent of putting a successful end to this painful issue, alwaysremembering that it concerns the fate of living human beings who deserve rehabilitationafter tens of years of suffering.
1.1 million Palestinian-Arab citizens currently live in Israel. An increase of that numberto 1.3 or even 1.5 million will not fundamentally change the demographic picture, especiallywhen Israel is absorbing more than 50 thousand new Jewish immigrants every year.
Yet this concept arouses deep fears in Israel. Even the historian Benny Morris, who playedsuch an important role in exposing the expulsion of 1948, is ready only for “perhaps a trickleof refugees being allowed to return to Israel – a few thousand, no more.”
I am aware that the offer far from satisfies the Palestinian demands. But I am convinced thatthe great majority of Palestinians know that it is the price that both sides have to pay in orderto leave behind the painful past and prepare for the building of their future in the two states.
When Will It Happen?
If this solution is adopted, in the framework of a comprehensive peace between Israel andPalestine that will bring with it peace between Israel and the entire Arab world, it can beimplemented in a few years.
The first stage will be, of course, the achievement of an agreement between the two parties.Hopefully, this will not be a process of bitter haggling, but a negotiation in good faith, withboth sides realizing that an agreed resolution will not only put an end to a great human tragedybut will also open the way for real peace.
The second stage will be the process of choosing. An international agency will have to makecertain that every refugee family will thoroughly know its rights and the option available toit. The agency must also make sure that every family can choose freely, without pressure.There must also be an orderly process of registering properties and submitting claims.
Nobody can know at this moment how many refugees will choose each of the options. One can assumethat many will prefer to remain where they are, especially if they have married locally or havebusinesses and taken roots. The compensations will raise their situation considerably.
Others will prefer to live in the Palestinian state, where they will feel at home within theirnation and their culture. Others may wish to return to Israeli territory, where they are closeto the homes of their families, even if they cannot return to destroyed homes and non-existentvillages. Others again may be disinclined to live in a state with a different national andcultural background, after seeing the reality there with their own eyes. A real choice will bepossible only when all the facts are clear, and even then not a few might change their mindsrepeatedly.
Once the great national issue, the symbol of the Palestinian sense of injustice, becomes apersonal issue of hundreds of thousands of individual families, each one of them will reach anindividual decision.
At the same time the international agency must come into being. Experience shows that thiswill not be easy and that countries that promise generous contributions for such an effort donot always fulfil their promises.
The third stage will be the implementation, which will certainly take several years.
Clearly the fear of many Israelis, that a catastrophe on the scale of a natural disaster willsuddenly engulf them, is without basis. The solution of the problem will be a prolonged,controlled, reasonable and logical process.
Historic Conciliation
I believe that this plan can achieve a moral, just, practical and agreed-upon solution.
Both sides will accept it, in the end, because there is no other. There can be no peace withoutthe solution of the refugee question, and the only solution is one both sides can live with.
Perhaps it will all be to the good. When both sides start on the path to the solution, it mayfacilitate the conciliation between them. When they sit together to find creativesolutions, all kinds of interesting ideas may turn up. For example: why not rebuild two orthree Palestinian villages which were destroyed after 1948, and whose sites are stillvacant? Many things that seem impossible today may appear on the table once the atmospherebetween the parties changes.
Perhaps then the ancient saying of the Psalmist will apply to the refugees: “The stone whichthe builders refused has become the head stone of the corner.”