Palestinian Refugees: Background Information

Part 1:

Today, more than 3.6 million Palestinians who reside in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive education, health care, and relief assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). In part, Yasser Arafat rejected the President Clinton’s bridging proposal of December 2000 that would have established a Palestinian state due to his unyielding stance that all Palestinian "refugees" everywhere had an absolute "right to return" to Israel proper. Israel has long rejected such a notion and Clinton’s proposal offered a compromise in which all such persons would have had options to relocate to the new Palestinian state that was proposed, remain in their current host countries, or resettle in additional countries. Both the latter conditions would have required approval of the countries in question. In addition, a $30 billion refugee fund would have been established.

The Palestinian Position:
The Palestinian leadership argues that all such refugees have an absolute "right to return" to Israel proper due to its belief that these refugees were driven out of Israel during the 1948 War and other wars. They argue that the refugees and all their descendants should be able to return back to Israel proper.

The Israeli Position:
Israel rejects this principle on two major grounds. First, it argues that Israel was not responsible for the refugees' flight. Rather, the Palestinians had vacated their homes in 1947-48 for numerous reasons. Thousands left in anticipation of the war. Additional thousands heeded a call by Arab leaders' to move away from advancing Arab armies. Second, an "absolute right to return" would materially alter the demographic composition of Israel and undercut the original intent of the UN’s two-state partition plan. Israel, like any other country, will not accept a solution that engineers its demise as a sovereign state.

The United Nations' Position:
On December 11, 1948, the United Nations adopted General Assembly Resolution 194 that contained among other provisions, one that stated that the General Assembly "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." Palestinian and Arab leaders have seized upon this Resolution to proclaim an absolute "right of return" to Israel proper for all Palestinians living outside of the historic Palestine region.

On 22 November 1974, the UN adopted General Assembly Resolution 3236 toward that end. It declared that the UN General Assembly "Reaffirms...the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."

Who are the "refugees" in question?
During the 1948 War, 750,000 Palestinians Palestinians either fled or were expelled by Israel, according to United Nations data. However, a look back at the events finds some differences that are notable.

With respect to refugees, a significant number (between 28.6%-30.7% of the total) were actually "created" prior to the 1948 War and establishment of Israel. This distinction is important, because Israel was not established until May 14, 1948 and this means that this portion could not properly be blamed on the state of Israel. Prior to and after Israel's creation, the region of Palestine was wracked by significant civil strife, violence, and terrorism between Arabs and Jewish people.

Of the total number of refugees, some fled and others were expelled. In addition, a somewhat lower number than 750,000 was recognized as qualifying for refugee status. The UN's Clapp Mission found 652,000 Arab refugees eligible for assistance and also reported 348,000 other persons did not qualify because they were bona fide residents of the Arab states. There were Jewish refugees, as well.

Here are some key developments affecting the region (dates correspond to editions of The New York Times).

November 29, 1947: Grand Mufti Huseini calls on Palestinian Arabs to fight setting up Jewish state.

November 30, 1947: UN adopts General Assembly Resolution 181 which calls for the creation of an "Arab" and "Jewish" state in the Palestine region on November 29, 1947 by a 33-13 vote.

December 16, 1947: Justice for Palestine Committee Chairman Dr. J. Ralbag asks UN Security Council to safeguard 800,000 Jewish residents living in Arab states.

January 26, 1948: Arab troops enter Palestine from Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria.

February 16, 1948: Jews attack Arab village of Sasa; Haganah defeat Arab attack on Tel Aviv.

February 22, 1948: Moslem Brotherhood Association reports accidental explosion at meeting of Arab volunteers recruited to fight Zionism.

February 23, 1948: Ben Yehuda Street, Jerusalem wrecked by explosion; 33 believed killed, 88 hurt. Arab sources admit deed, hint British uniforms were stolen.

March 19, 1948: Units of Trans-jordan Arab Legion assume military control over 2 districts; said to be under Arab League orders; U.S. urges UN to protect inhabitants against outside pressure.

March 24, 1948: Arabs blow up 30-40 houses in Jerusalem.

April 11, 1948: Arab League Political Committee debates proposal for complete occupation of Palestine by Arab Legion under Trans-Jordan Emir. Abdullah rule after British withdraw.

April 20, 1948: Haganah takes over Tiberias following evacuation of 6,000 Arabs.

April 22, 1948: Haifa battle opens; 25,000 Arabs leave.

April 23, 1948: Cairo sources report plan for invasion by 50,000 Arabs.

April 24, 1948: Abdullah urges Arab world fight Jews; Syrians report getting stand-by order for invasion.

April 27, 1948: Abdullah announces he will assume command of Trans-Jordan, Lebanese, and Syrian troops and move into Palestine May 1. Mufti Husseini tells UN Arabs will set up own state after May 15.

May 4, 1948: Trans-Jordan: invasion seen awaiting Mandate end.

May 4, 1948: About 200,000 Arab and 15,000 Jewish refugees pose problem.

May 15, 1948: State of Israel proclaimed on May 14, 1948. State adopts Partition Plan borders.

May 16, 1948: Egypt informs Security Council of invasion; charges Zionist terror.

June 10, 1948: Israeli President Weizmann invites Arabs to become Israeli citizens.

July 4, 1948: Arabs offer counterproposals said to reject Israeli sovereignty.

July 10, 1948: Moslem Iman broadcasts call for holy war.

July 12, 1948: Arab leader proposes symbolic Jewish state as alternative to Jewish settlement in Palestine.

July 17, 1948: Mufti urges continued war.

Resolving the Refugee Question:
The Arab states demanded a return of all refugees. Israel suggested that the return of the refugees depended on treatment of Jews in Arab areas. Later, Israel offered several compromises in which it was willing to take back a share of refugees. Arab states rejected all compromise offers. However, at times Arab states requested compensation for refugees and also land from Israel for resettlement.

July 19, 1948: Arabs accept truce; demand curbs on Jewish migration; time limit on truce; return of Arab refugees to Israeli-held areas.

July 21, 1948: Arabs renew demand for refugees return.

July 22, 1948: Israeli Premier Ben Gurion bars immigration curbs; says return of Arab refugees depends on treatment of Jews in Arab area.

July 24, 1948: International Red Cross puts Arab refugees at 300,000; describes plight.

July 25, 1948: Arab refugees demand return.

December 12, 1948: UN passes General Assembly Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948.

February 16, 1949: Egypt opposes resettlement in Arab states; backed by Iraq and Lebanon at conference with UN Conciliation Comm.

March 5, 1949: H. Zinder reply blames Arab High Command for refugees flight.

March 19, 1949: Arab League and Iraq charge Israel forced 479 invalid Arabs to flee; protest to UN; Min. Sharet lauds U.S. aid; opposes refugees repatriation to Israel; suggests compensation.

March 26, 1949: UN comm. asks Arabs to submit proposals; Israel urges resettling refugees in Arab countries.

March 30, 1949: British Under Secretary Henderson urges industrial development in Arab states for resettlement; pledges British aid.

April 1, 1949: Great Britain weighs plan to finance resettlement in Trans-Jordan; Iraq demands that Israel pay Arabs for loss of homes.

May 1, 1949: W. Eytan urges resettlement on international scale; pledges Israeli share; rejects blame for plight.

May 28, 1949: Viscount Samuel says Israel must pay Arabs for abandoned lands; opposes Arabs return.

May 29, 1949: U.S. effort to get Arab nations to resettle refugees discussed.

June 4, 1949: Israel offers to take back 230,000 refugees if Egypt cedes Gaza Strip.

June 21, 1949: Min. Sharet reports Israel willing to repatriate families of Arabs now living in Israel; Arab MPs urge repatriation.

July 17, 1949: President Weizmann urges resettlement program by all Near East states; pledges Israeli share; cites Arab failure to offer underpopulated lands.

July 30, 1949: Israel to accept 100,000 refugees when peace is proclaimed; pledges to help resettle others in Arab states.

August 4, 1949: Israel admists willingness to repatriate 100,000; will deduct 35,000 already returned.

August 5, 1949: Sharet puts number of refugees outside Israel at 520,000 not 800,000 reported by the U.S.

August 12, 1949: U.S. maps compromise based on Israeli repatriation of 250,000 and U.S. aid in resettling others in Arab states.

September 1, 1949: Arabs demand Israel give land for resettlement.

October 18, 1949: Premier Nuri as-Said proposes exchange of 100,000 for Iraqi Jews.

December 9, 1949: Israeli offer to repatriate 100,000 refugees; urges speed.

Part 2:

Is there an Absolute "Right to Return?"
The language of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 suggests that it was of a nature of giving strong advice but not an unconditional demand, as it used "should" rather than "must." In the absence of clear International Law standards pertaining to refugees, this Resolution established the principle of addressing the situation pertaining to the 1947-48 refugees.

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was adopted 12 August 1949 and gained force in 1950. Article 44 mandated that refugees who enjoyed no protection of any state should not be treated as "enemy aliens" and Article 45 barred forced transfer of refugees to states in which they might face political or religious persecution even as it stated that it was not an obstacle to repatriation. Nonetheless, no "right of return" was created. Article 73 of Protocol 1 (1977) required that "Persons who, before the beginning of hostilities, were considered as stateless persons or refugees under the relevant international instruments...shall be protected persons...in all circumstances and without any adverse distinction." Again, no "right of return" was provided for. In addition, neither the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees nor its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees created a "right of return." Of course, those legal instruments were enacted after the 1948 war.

What is relevant to that conflict is what took place with respect to that conflict that was launched by an attempted Arab invasion of Israel. The actions and proposals of the International Community were also revealing. In February 1949, the UN Conciliation Committee called for resettlement of Arab refugees on Arab lands. The Arab leaders rejected this idea. In March 1949, the UN asked Arab states to submit proposals concerning resettlement. In April 1949, Arab leaders were demanding compensation for refugees rather than resettlement. In August 1949, the U.S. proposed a compromise where Israel would readmit 250,000 refugees and the rest would be resettled in Arab states. At the end of August 1949, Arabs were demanding that Israel grant them some land to resettle refugees indicating that the Arab states were close to accepting to resettle the refugees.

All this activity suggests that the softer language was not accidental. Rather it shows it was the preference, but not absolute demand, of the General Assembly for Israel to accept the Arab refugees, with those not accepted by Israel being resettled in Arab lands. In addition, the actions of the Israel and the Arab states suggested that all sides understood the Resolution's nature, specifically that there was no unconditional or inalienable "right to return" for the Arab refugees.

What to Do about the Refugees:
There is little question that their plight is real, but any solution must address the core needs of both the Palestinian refugees and their descendants, as well as Israel’s core needs. Three steps would contribute to a humane solution:

1) All descendants of 1947-48 refugees who were born in various Arab states should be granted full citizenship, human rights, and equal opportunity in work and education in those Arab states in which they were born.

2) All refugees from all wars should have the opportunity to return to a new Palestinian state when it is created.

3) A fund should be established, even in the absence of a peace agreement, to replace refugee camps with permanent housing and provide investment in creating economic and educational opportunities for the refugees and their descendants.

donsutherland1 said:

Part 2:
Is there an Absolute "Right to Return?"
The language of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 suggests that it was of a nature of giving strong advice but not an unconditional demand, as it used "should" rather than "must." In the absence of clear International Law standards pertaining to refugees, this Resolution established the principle of addressing the situation pertaining to the 1947-48 refugees.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

Part 1:
Today, more than 3.6 million Palestinians who reside in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive education, health care, and relief assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
. ...
December 9, 1949: Israeli offer to repatriate 100,000 refugees; urges speed.

Click to expand...

If we to go beyond the semantics of should, must, can, could, may, might hair splitting, one would find that Israel understood exactly what article 11 of resolution 194 stated. The fact that Israel offered the repatriation of 100,000 Palestinians refugees is an addmision of their rignt of return per resolution 194.

The Making of the Arab-Israeli ... - Google Book Search

Illan Pappe addressed this in his book The making of the Arab-Israeli conflict 1947-1951 p. 230-233.

donsutherland1 said:

Part 2:
What to Do about the Refugees:
There is little question that their plight is real, but any solution must address the core needs of both the Palestinian refugees and their descendants, as well as Israel’s core needs. Three steps would contribute to a humane solution:
1) All descendants of 1947-48 refugees who were born in various Arab states should be granted full citizenship, human rights, and equal opportunity in work and education in those Arab states in which they were born.

Click to expand...

In previous posts in other threads you said the following:

donsutherland1 said:

However, I will add that as a fully sovereign state, Israel has every right to establish such immigration and naturalization policies as it sees fit.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

No nation's immigration policy is wholly open. A completely open immigration policy would automatically allow any person from anywhere to immigrate to a given country. For various logistical reasons, no nation maintains a completely open immigration policy.

A state's allowing people to immigrate to that state is a privilege. No person can claim an automatic right to immigrate to a given country. Otherwise, one could merely move to a country without needing any kind of approval whatsoever. Therefore, it is not surprising that the international community permits nations to define immigration limits and other immigration/naturalization policies. It also is not surprising that international law does not mandate that nations have completely open immigration policies, especially as not a single nation has a completely open immigration policy.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

even as each of the two peoples shared historical legitimacy in the region and an equal claim to the fundamental right of self-determination. Not surprisingly, UNSCOP, and before it, the Peel Commission, both reached the same conclusion in choosing partition.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why would you not expect that the same principle applies to Arab countries? Sovereign nations have the right to set their immigration policies, Right?

Asking Arab countries to grant citizenships in violation of their immigration policies and not asking Israel to do the same is a double standard IMO.

donsutherland1 said:

Part 2:
2) All refugees from all wars should have the opportunity to return to a new Palestinian state when it is created.

Click to expand...

To that end, Israel has not offered much. For example, it could agree to remove the settlements but insists that the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon numbered around 400,000 a little less than the settlers that number 450,000 be settled in the areas populated now by the settlers. Or, it could grant some land adjacent to the west bank where Palestinian refugees can be re-settled. It can also request that settlers saty in the west bank and offer to absorb equal numbers of the refugees into their own hometowns that they occupied prior to 1949.

donsutherland1 said:

[
3) A fund should be established, even in the absence of a peace agreement, to replace refugee camps with permanent housing and provide investment in creating economic and educational opportunities for the refugees and their descendants.

Click to expand...

That would be nice; however, money alone is not going to address the issue of the Palestinian refugees, justice will. There are 2 issues regarding the Palestinians refugees that are separate but both need attention:

1) Those refugees are considered guests by the host countries and by themselves. They "must" be treated humainly, have rights to work, travel, desent housing, educational opportunities etc... by all host countries.

2) The final status regarding citizenship is an issue that can only be resolved by negotiations. All countries and the refugees need to agree on the final solution.

SquareMelon said:

In previous posts in other threads you said the following:

Why would you not expect that the same principle applies to Arab countries? Sovereign nations have the right to set their immigration policies, Right?

Asking Arab countries to grant citizenships in violation of their immigration policies and not asking Israel to do the same is a double standard IMO.

Click to expand...

Notice, I used the softer term "should" rather than "must." Ultimately, while I believe they should do so, particularly for Palestinians who have been born there, I recognize that they cannot be compelled to do so.

To that end, Israel has not offered much. For example, it could agree to remove the settlements but insists that the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon numbered around 400,000 a little less than the settlers that number 450,000 be settled in the areas populated now by the settlers. Or, it could grant some land adjacent to the west bank where Palestinian refugees can be re-settled. It can also request that settlers saty in the west bank and offer to absorb equal numbers of the refugees into their own hometowns that they occupied prior to 1949.

Click to expand...

Israel's accepting President Clinton's bridging proposal that would have given the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank (inclusive of land swaps) and all of the Gaza Strip was an enormous concession. Under that agreement, all of the Palestinian refugees could have moved to the new Palestinian state. Yasser Arafat did not accept the agreement.

That would be nice; however, money alone is not going to address the issue of the Palestinian refugees, justice will. There are 2 issues regarding the Palestinians refugees that are separate but both need attention:

1) Those refugees are considered guests by the host countries and by themselves. They "must" be treated humainly, have rights to work, travel, desent housing, educational opportunities etc... by all host countries.

2) The final status regarding citizenship is an issue that can only be resolved by negotiations. All countries and the refugees need to agree on the final solution.

Click to expand...

I recognize that money, alone, won't address the issue. However, even before a negotiated outcome, there is no good reason that an effort cannot be made to finance the construction of permanent housing and economic development. That approach would be superior to that of the approach at which UNRWA plays the leading role, which actually perpetuates the refugee issue. Investment in economic development and replacement of refugee camps would reduce the number of listed refugees. In the end, they will have the chance to move to a Palestinian state. Some of them might have a chance to remain in their host countries, but such an arrangement will require the consent of such countries. They won't be moving to Israel.