[lbo-talk] new blog post: A Coda on Solidarity: Iran, the Left and Noble Savages | The Activist

SA s11131978 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 15 14:25:56 PDT 2010


Joseph Catron wrote:


>> First of all, the position of the PLO under Arafat (and since) has been
>> that while the "principle" of the right of return is non-negotiable, how and
>> under what conditions it is to be "implemented" must be negotiated with
>> Israel.
>>
>
>
> As a basic matter of language, the necessity to negotiate the implementation
> of a demand does not mean that the demand itself is negotiable. That much
> should be apparent to anyone who has ever negotiated anything: a union
> contract, the purchase of a car, etc.
>

Yah, but that's not what I'm talking about. The formal position of the PLO - which represents all Palestinians, in the region and the diaspora - includes this carefully worded passage: "Within the parameters outlined by international law, the PLO is confident that there are a number of creative options that could meet the interest of providing choice to refugees while simultaneously meeting concerns of all parties." [i.e., Israel.]

If you want like an idea of what that might look like, you can read the (leaked) notes from the European Union's observer-delegate at the 2001 Taba talks, where Ehud Barak (for reasons unclear) allowed his dovish negotiating team, led by Yossi Beilin, to go as far as they wanted in discussing a final settlement with the PLO. No agreement was reached, of course, but it was by far the most concrete and productive work on the refugee file ever attempted in the history of PLO-Israel negotiations. The notes are here: http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm

Akiva Eldar of Ha'aretz, based on the notes and interviews with all the parties, summarized the thrust of the talks this way:


> A mechanism was worked out at Taba with the aim of defusing the highly
> charged issue of the "right of return." The following are the
> principles of the settlement, as recorded by Israeli and Palestinian
> sources who took part in the negotiations. Most of the details were
> confirmed by international sources who closely monitored the negotiations.
>
> The international body that will be established to deal with the
> subject will present each refugee with five options: rehabilitation in
> his current place of residence including citizenship of the state in
> which he lives; absorption in the new State of Palestine; settlement
> in Halutza, in the southern Negev in Israel; immigration to a country
> outside the region (the external affairs minister of Canada, who
> visited Israel a short time ago, reiterated his country's commitment
> to take in refugees as part of a comprehensive peace agreement);
> return to Israeli territory.
>
> The five options will be shaped in a manner that will channel
> immigration as much as possible to options other than a return to
> Israel. This will include a series of incentives, an accelerated
> rehabilitation program and generous economic aid, which will be
> offered to Palestinians who forgo the option of immigration to Israel.
>
> The immigration quotas will also be geared to induce refugees to opt
> for the alternatives to living in Israel. It was agreed that the
> immigration quotas for Israel will be lower than those set for other
> destinations. (According to an estimate by foreign sources, it will be
> possible, in negotiations, to reach agreement on a quota of 40,000
> refugee immigrants to Israel over a period of five years.) In any
> event, it was agreed that Israel has the sovereign right to decide who
> will enter her territory and who will be barred from entering.
>
> Dealing with the personal status of each refugee will be conditional
> upon his relinquishing refugee status and accepting the same rights as
> those in whatever place he chooses to reside. This means that the
> refugee agrees the place he chooses will be his final place of
> residence. In addition, this will mean forgoing claims to property in
> Israel. The Israeli side attached great importance to this point,
> viewing it as confirmation of the end of Israel's commitment with
> respect to the refugee problem.
>
> The new international body will replace the United Nations Relief and
> Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which
> will be dismantled within five years. The new body will assume
> responsibility for dealing with the refugees at both the personal and
> the community level. This will include establishing infrastructure and
> making provision for education, housing, health and welfare, and
> professional training. Israel would like the UNRWA to shut down its
> operations, on the grounds that the organization's existence
> perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. It was agreed that
> refugee certificates that UNRWA issues would be canceled. Refugee
> camps containing those who choose to be rehabilitated where they are
> will be annexed to adjacent cities. Thus the refugee camps will lose
> their extraterritorial status.
>
> The international body will raise funds and give compensation for
> private real estate that was expropriated from the refugees. There is
> still an unresolved dispute concerning property of common ownership,
> collective compensation, and movable property, such as vehicles and
> the other items that the refugees left behind.
>
> Israel demanded that a ceiling be set for the amount of compensation
> to be paid; this would then become part of the permanent agreement.
> The Palestinians demanded that compensation be set on a case-by-case
> basis, with no ceiling - that is, with a separate assessment of the
> worth of each refugee's case. Israel argued that the adoption of that
> system would perpetuate the problem, because the Palestinians would
> quickly find themselves in a confrontation with the administration,
> which would attempt to reduce the assessed value of their property.
> One idea that was discussed was for the amount to be calculated within
> a designated time, using a method that would take account of
> macro-economic considerations and individual case-by-case calculations.

You can see that this has nothing to do with 4 million refugees returning to Israel. The PA's polling in the refugee camps showed that given these choices only 10% of refugees would choose to return to Israel. (Or at least said they would.) That would be 400,000 (n.b. - implemented on a timetable stretching several years) which, if combined with the repatriation of Israeli settlers and the switch of East Jerusalem's Arab residents to Palestinian citizenship, probably would not change the demographic balance in Israel at all. (In fact, it could even increase the Jewish majority very slightly.)

Of course, given Israeli rejectionism all this is currently moot. And it's true, there are many Palestinians who are very unhappy when these things get discussed - Khalil Shikaki, the pollster who did the survey I mentioned, was attacked by a mob at his office in Ramallah when he released this poll. If the Israeli-Palestinian situation ever somehow returns to a point where these final status issues can be discussed again, I'm sure those people will do their utmost to make sure no agreement will be reached till the end of time. That would be the moral thing to do, of course.


> you are welcome
> to justify your willingness to traffic in the rights of others however you
> like; it's still shameful.

Oh give me a break. You know, in Germany there used to be a similar politics, practiced by the leagues and parties of the 12 million refugees expelled illegally, often brutally, from the Eastern territories in 1945. They yelled and screamed about how shameful it would be if Germany ever betrayed their inalienable right to return to their ancestral homes by recognizing the new realities of the Eastern territories or by practicing detente with the states that expelled them. Every German politician ritually mouthed these platitudes for a few decades. Fortunately, though, the Germans under Willy Brandt were wise enough to choose the opposite tack. They recognized the loss of the territories and singned peace treaties with the states that practiced the expulsions. Today, any of those refugees (to the extent that they care anymore) can live and work in Poland or Czechoslovakia under EU treaties without even showing a passport. They can even buy land and be farmers again if they want.

SA



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list