<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
Why a 'right of return' is necessary<br><br>
By Sari Hanafi<br><br>
The Daily Star<br>
7 October 2004<br><br>
<a href="http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=9038" eudora="autourl">http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=9038<br><br>
</a>The right of return of Palestinian refugees to their place of<br>
origin is enshrined in four separate bodies of international law:<br>
humanitarian law, human rights law, the law of nationality as<br>
applied to state succession, and refugee law.<br><br>
Beyond these bodies of laws, which apply to all refugees in the<br>
world, the UN General Assembly specified the Palestinian case in<br>
Resolution 194, paragraph 11, which sets forth a framework for a<br>
solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees, including the<br>
possibility of return: "The refugees wishing to return to
their<br>
homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted<br>
to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation<br>
should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return<br>
and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of<br>
international law or in equity, should be made good by the<br>
governments or authorities responsible."<br><br>
To understand the importance of the refugee issue to<br>
Palestinians, we must understand that the Palestinian nation and<br>
Palestinian nationalism as it exists today was born following the<br>
expulsion of over half the Palestinian population from their land<br>
in 1948, and that one of the fundamental aspects of Palestinian<br>
identity is "refugeehood." Such an understanding obliges us
to<br>
address the problem of the Palestinian refugees as fundamental to<br>
any solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.<br><br>
There are five reasons for this: First, as long as the Israelis<br>
do not take into consideration what happened to the Palestinians<br>
in 1948 and the expulsion of the indigenous population from 78<br>
percent of the land of historic Palestine, they will keep<br>
bargaining about the remaining 22 percent (the West Bank<br>
including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). There is no<br>
solution to the land issue without coupling it with the refugee<br>
issue. This may be the reason why the Oslo Accords failed.<br><br>
Second, resolving the refugee issue is not just a technical<br>
matter of absorption, nor is it a matter of reciting<br>
international law like reciting the Koran. Rather, it involves<br>
deconstructing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to its very<br>
premises, to understand how its causes led to a certain kind of<br>
colonial practice, and to recognize the need for a debate not<br>
just to understand, but also to acknowledge and accept, historic<br>
responsibility. This is the very precondition for true<br>
reconciliation and mutual forgiveness, as suggested by the late<br>
Edward Said.<br><br>
Third, irrespective of whether the final resolution of the<br>
Palestinian-Israeli conflict takes the form of a two-state or a<br>
binational state solution, the refugee issue cannot be considered<br>
secondary. The current intifada has revealed the importance of<br>
the refugees; they are the social and political actors most<br>
unable to bear the impasse in the Oslo process.<br><br>
Fourth, beyond the moral and symbolic value of achieving a right<br>
of return, the right is useful in creating a framework for<br>
providing refugees with a choice between remaining in their host<br>
countries, returning to their places of origin or coming to a<br>
future Palestinian state (or third countries). The right of<br>
choice is a necessity for those who have, for half a century,<br>
been forced to live as aliens without basic rights in miserable<br>
camps and in states that have not always embraced them with open<br>
arms.<br><br>
Finally, if the right of return and the right of choice is<br>
accepted, it will open many possibilities for the refugees to<br>
choose from. The movement of refugees depends on many factors<br>
related to their social, economic, cultural and identities. The<br>
return of refugees does not mean that the whole refugee community<br>
will move back to Israel. In almost all cases, the experience of<br>
refugees across the world shows that the number of those who<br>
return is less than those who choose other solutions. The Israeli<br>
phobia of a return is unjustified.<br><br>
Hannah Arendt, in her study of totalitarianism, reminded us of<br>
"the decision of statesmen to solve the problem of
statelessness<br>
by ignoring it." She insisted on the necessity of examining<br>
displacement through the prism of often xenophobic nation-states,<br>
and she traced the political and symbolic logic that had the<br>
effect of "pathologizing" and even criminalizing refugees.
The<br>
contemporary linkage that has been forged between Palestinian<br>
return and a disturbance of the regional order, especially in<br>
Israel, attests to the continuing relevance of Arendt's point.<br><br>
Sari Hanafi is director of the Palestinian Diaspora and Refugee<br>
Center. This commentary appeared in bitterlemons.org, an online<br>
newsletter.<br><br>
<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3><a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>