Reply #11: not to sound excessively semantical - but there is a huge difference in legal terms between refusing

[Douglas Carpenter]

to relinquish the right of return and demanding the implementation of the right of return.

As recognized by international law - every Palestinian who became a refugee in 1948 and 1949 and their descendants has at least in theory the right to return to their home or the environs of their homes - according to Article 13 of the Declaration of Universal Human Rights and specifically affirmed in regards to the Palestinians by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948. Very few Palestinians actually expect this right to actually be implemented. But most would have a real crisis of conscience to actually sign off on or give up that right as a matter of principle.

I recall once talking with a Palestinian who was born and raised in Jordan and had full Jordanian citizenship. He made it very clear that his life was in Jordan and he had no desire whatsoever to return to even the West Bank much less to Jaffa where his father was born. He was going to stay in Jordan. But when I asked if he would be willing to formally, officially and legally rescind his right of return - on this point he was absolutely dogmatic - no - Never! This might all sound like semantics - but the difference in language is crucial from the point of view of selling the agreement to the Palestinian diaspora around the world. Emotionally speaking it would be like insisting that Jewish people around the world to rescind their claim to Israel's law of return.

The late Chairman Yasser Arafat stated clearly in an editorial on February 3, 2002 in the New York Times that Palestinians do recognize the demographic concerns of Israel and that these concerns must be considered in any peace agreement:

"We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns." - - Yasser Arafat

.....

Palestinians are ready to end the conflict. We are ready to sit down now with any Israeli leader, regardless of his history, to negotiate freedom for the Palestinians, a complete end of the occupation, security for Israel and creative solutions to the plight of the refugees while respecting Israel's demographic concerns. - - Yasser Arafat


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/opinion/the-palestinian-vision-of-peace.html

Furthermore according to the Morantinos Documents of the Taba Talks of January 2001 - there was significant discussions in regards to the issue of refugees and the right of return. These documents do verify that there was a willingness to compromise on the part of both parties:

3. Refugees

Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for the talks. Both sides stated that the issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to the Israeli-Palestinian relations and that a comprehensive and just solution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace. Both sides agreed to adopt the principles and references with could facilitate the adoption of an agreement.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

3.1 Narrative

The Israeli side put forward a suggested joint narrative for the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian side discussed the proposed narrative and there was much progress, although no agreement was reached in an attempt to develop and historical narrative in the general text.

3.2 Return, repatriation and relocation and rehabilitation

Both sides engaged in a discussion of the practicalities of resolving the refugee issue. The Palestinian side reiterated that the Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to their homes in accordance with the interpretation of UNGAR 194. The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return as per wording of UNGAR 194 shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:

A. Return and repatriation
1. to Israel
2. to Israel swapped territory
3. to the Palestine state.

B. Rehabilitation and relocation
1. Rehabilitation in host country.
2. Relocation to third country.

Preference in all these programs shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. The Palestinian side stressed that the above shall be subject to the individual free choice of the refugees, and shall not prejudice their right to their homes in accordance with its interpretation of UNGAR 194.

The Israeli side, informally, suggested a three-track 15-year absorption program, which was discussed but not agreed upon. The first track referred to the absorption to Israel. No numbers were agreed upon, but with a non-paper referring to 25,000 in the first three years of this program (40,000 in the first five years of this program did not appear in the non-paper but was raised verbally). The second track referred to the absorption of Palestinian refugees into the Israeli territory, that shall be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, and the third track referring to the absorption of refugees in the context of family reunification scheme.

The Palestinian side did not present a number, but stated that the negotiations could not start without an Israeli opening position. It maintained that Israel's acceptance of the return of refugees should not prejudice existing programs within Israel such as family reunification.

3.3 Compensation

Both sides agreed to the establishment of an International Commission and an International Fund as a mechanism for dealing with compensation in all its aspects. Both sides agreed that "small-sum" compensation shall be paid to the refugees in the "fast-track" procedure, claims of compensation for property losses below certain amount shall be subject to "fast-track" procedures.

There was also progress on Israeli compensation for material losses, land and assets expropriated, including agreement on a payment from an Israeli lump sum or proper amount to be agreed upon that would feed into the International Fund. According to the Israeli side the calculation of this payment would be based on a macro-economic survey to evaluate the assets in order to reach a fair value. The Palestinian side, however, said that this sum would be calculated on the records of the UNCCP, the Custodian for Absentee Property and other relevant data with a multiplier to reach a fair value.


http://prrn.mcgill.ca/prrn/papers/moratinos.html

So again, it is important to understand the huge difference between asking the Palestinians to not insist on demanding the implementation of the right of return and insisting that they fully rescind their claim to a right of return. These semantics make all the difference in the world when it comes to presenting the agreement to the Palestinian people.