http://indymedia.org.il
There is no right of returnMonday 18 Aug 2003
author: Haaretz Editorial
summary
There is no right of return
Palestinian Authority External Affairs Minister
Nabil Sha'ath chose Lebanon, an Arab state that
denies the most fundamental human rights to scores
of Palestinian refugees, as a base from which to
unleash a provocative declaration regarding the
right of 1948 refugees to return to Haifa.
There is no right of return
Palestinian Authority External Affairs Minister
Nabil Sha'ath chose Lebanon, an Arab state that
denies the most fundamental human rights to scores
of Palestinian refugees, as a base from which to
unleash a provocative declaration regarding the
right of 1948 refugees to return to Haifa. His
remarks were neither a slip of the tongue nor mere
historic-legal sophistry about the theoretical
rights of principle held by the refugees.
In a series of polished
statements, the PA minister
related to the return of
refugees as a practical
solution - and even as a
precondition - to a final
status agreement. Speaking on
Friday at a Beirut gathering
that included refugee
delegates, Sha'ath said the
right of return to "Palestinian cities in the
Jewish state" is an integral part of the Arab
peace initiative, which is referred to by the
road map as one of the fundamental elements of
a permanent agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians.
Concurrently, organizations operating refugee
camps in the territories staged a rally under
Palestinian Authority patronage devoted to the
slogan: "There is no alternative to a right of
return." Speakers berated Prof. Sari Nusseibeh,
who has been recruiting support for a peace
plan proposing that refugees redeem a right of
return by establishing homes in a new
Palestinian state erected on the West Bank and
Gaza Strip. They also attacked Dr. Khalil
Shikaki, head of the public opinion research
institute in Ramallah, who released a
comprehensive survey showing that only a
minority of refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and the
territories want to redeem a right of return to
Israel.
Statements about a right of return, particularly
ones made by Sha'ath, sparked vehement
rebuttals not only (as would be expected) from
spokesmen of Israel's right-wing government,
but also from opposition chairman Shimon Peres
and Meretz Knesset members Yossi Sarid and Ran
Cohen. They emphasized that they would
adamantly oppose a peace agreement that
includes a Palestinian right of return to
Israel, since such a right poses a threat to
the state's identity and to the solution of two
states for two peoples.
The Palestinian leadership would be well advised
to take very seriously the united front in
Israel that opposes a right of return. The most
committed supporters of the Oslo Accords
believe that a concession of refugees' right of
return to Haifa can be traded fairly for a
concession of Jews' right of return to Hebron.
Israel, just like the PA and Arab states,
should feel committed to the search of a just
solution to hundreds of thousands of stateless,
disenfranchised people who live in, and
outside, refugee camps. But this solution
cannot include a return of refugees to the
State of Israel; instead, the return should be
to the Palestinian state that will arise
alongside Israel.
Virtually all Palestinian leaders have poorly
served their own people by cultivating among
refugees the illusion of a right of return to
Israel, rather than courageously encouraging
them to recognize that the establishment of a
Palestinian state entails the relinquishing of
hopes of returning to Israeli territory. With
his irresponsible remarks, Sha'ath throws dust
in Palestinians' eyes, and sullies prospects of
forging an agreement, even with those in Israel
who believe in compromise.