Article74 Magazine

 
Palestine Refugees 

“50 Years Under the Tent” 
Campaign for the Defense of Palestinian Refugee Rights 

Right of Return Re-assessed 

Report from a series of workshops organized by the NGO Campaign for the Defense of Refugee Rights (Alternative Information Center, Jerusalem Open University/Refugee Studies Center, Union of Youth Activities Centers/West Bank) 

The Role of the Palestinian Legislative Council/Refugee Subcommittee in Protecting Refugees’ Right of Return  
(Workshop 1, Jerusalem Open University/Refugee Studies Center, Ramallah; 15-5-1997) 

Jamal Shati (PLC/Refugee Subcommittee, Head of the Union of Youth Activities Centers) emphasized the role of the PLC as a supporter of popular refugee initiatives, irrespective of the framework in which they choose to act. This despite the fact that the PLC, as part of the Palestinian Authority, is forced to act within the narrow margins set by the DOP. Such popular refugee initiatives can serve to strengthen the position of the Palestinian negotiators. Moreover, he raised that regarding the right of return, it was upon the PLO to play a central role. 

Kamel al-Afghani (PLC) pointed out that the PLC refugee Subcommittee does not plan to participate in the political negotiations, since this was the responsibility of the PLO leadership. The PLC-Committee must focus on monitoring the situation in the refugee camps inside the PA areas. 

Dr. Ali Abu Rish (PLC) confirmed that there was pressure and a tendency to call for “realism”, i.e. pressure for a rapid solution of the refugee question and the notion that the right of return today must be interpreted differently than in the past. Therefore, it was upon the PLC-Refugee Subcommittee to re-affirm the Palestinian principles and to make clear that the refugees’ right of return was not to be compromised, neither to new conceptions created in the transition period, nor to the current political and economic crisis. 

Abed Rabbo Abu `Oun pointed out that PLC members, especially those in the PLC Refugee Subcommittee were elected to a large extent by refugees and must thus be ready to defend the needs and interests of their constituency. He also stated that although Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are living in different situations and conditions, the popular demand for the right of return has remained a common demand. The popular refugee conferences held in both areas have shown that refugees in the West Bank and refugees in the Gaza Strip are undivided when it comes to the right of return. One of the aims, also of the PLC, must therefore be to prevent the division of the refugee problem, such as divisions between West Bank and Gaza Strip, inside and outside; neither must the issue of the Palestinian refugees by left for the negotiators in the multilaterals. 

Development Programs in Refugee Camps - Impact on the Right of Return 
(Workshop 2, Youth Activities Center of Balata Refugee Camp/Nablus, on 16-5-1997) 

Tayseer Nassrallah (Administrative Director of Balata Youth Activities Center) called upon the NGO Campaign to conduct a series of meetings and workshops inside refugee camps, to raise issues of living conditions and problems related to health and education. Dealing with these daily problems, he argued, would strengthen refugees’ determination to insist in their right of return. 

Dr. Musallam Abu Hilu (Jerusalem Open University and academic director of the NGO Campaign) called for a deep analysis of development policies so as to understand their conceptual framework and so as to answer the question of who actually benefits from specific development policies. He warned that the effects of development programs on refugee attitudes have remained largely unstudied. Thus it may well be that development programs have an adverse effect on the refugees’ demand for return; such programs might lead to gradual and unconscious refugee integration and resettlement. 

Hussam Khader (PLC) pointed out that there was a harmonious tune being played by several parties, a melody about bypassing the refugee question and about canceling international resolutions related to it. UNRWA has already come under attack due to this new consensus. A PA ministerial declaration presented to the PLC - to take another example - made only very marginal and shy reference to the right of return. Hussam Khader suggested to listen carefully to the speeches of Palestinian officials and to insist in strong and clear statements on the right of return. He suggested to complement the recommendations of the recent meeting in Jericho, which had confirmed the need to elect refugee camp councils so as to conserve the special administrative and legal status of the camps (See also: Refugee News, below). 

Dr. Khaled al Hilu argued, based on his experience with development policies in the health services sector, that development programs must be translated into common national language for people to understand what they really imply. This because sometimes supporters of such programs are not even aware of what they are actually doing, blinded by the label of development. Thus, for example, there are persons who work for building self-administration in the refugee camps - just in order to enable UNRWA to leave without a just solution to the refugee problem.  

UNRWA camp directors of Balata RC, al Amari RC, Qalandia RC, Jelazoun RC, Deir Ammar RC and Jenin RC emphasized the need for the continuation of UNRWA services for health, environment protection, and education, as well as the need for better coordination between UNRWA and other services organizations established or elected in the camps. All of the above agreed that the improvement of living conditions in the camps was a means to guarantee steadfastness and to conserve camp identity. Improvement of living conditions does therefore not contradict the right of return. 

Jamal Shafi closed the workshop by summarizing its recommendations: 

1.We re-assert our demand for the right of return as in UN Resolution 194, especially in paragraph 11. 

2.Any effort to change the political reality of the Palestinian refugee camp must be totally rejected. 

3.The international community is called upon to fulfill its responsibility by supporting and funding UNRWA so the latter can continue its services inside and outside the camps. 

4.We criticize the PLO and the PNA for its attitude of acceptance and silence with regard to the transfer of UNRWA headquarters from Vienna to the Gaza Strip, a step which expresses UNRWA’s shift from an international to the local arena. 

5.We reconfirm the rejection of cuts in UNRWA services and demand UNRWA to increase its services. 

6.We demand that UNRWA not engage in policies which divide the Palestinian refugees and deny the right of return, especially when it comes to UNRWA’s Peace Implementation Programs. 

7.We affirm the strong rejection of transfer of UNRWA tasks to other parties. 

8.We call upon UNRWA to rent new lands in order to improve the living conditions of the growing refugee population in the camps. These newly rented plots should carry the name of the original camp until a just solution, i.e. the right of return, is achieved. UNRWA is to extend its services to the new residential areas. 

9.We demand that incidents of UNRWA offering land to PNA returnees - as occurred in Jericho - be not repeated. 

Legal Dimensions of the Right of Return 
(Workshop 3, Arab Women’s Union, Bethlehem, 26-5-1997) 

This workshop tried to deal with questions frequently raised in regard with UN resolutions on the Palestinian refugee question, especially UN General Assembly (GA) resolution 194 (11-12-1948): is this resolution binding on UN member states? Are there measures which can be taken so as to enforce its binding character? Is this Resolution at all a term of reference in negotiations in the Oslo framework? Which are the main obstacles for its implementation and what can be done to protect this resolution from the Israeli attacks which have been supported by the US? 

Dr. Hanna `Issa (teacher of international law, PA-Ministry of Justice) argued that the national rights of the Palestinian people are natural rights which are unseparable from the existence and the history of the Arab Palestinian people. This was in fact recognized by the international community (League of Nations) and expressed in the principles of the British Mandate in Palestine, which was to lead the Palestinian people towards independence. 
Then Dr. `Issa presented some of the more recent UN resolutions which underline the necessity of implementing the basic resolutions (GA Resolution 194 pertaining to 1948 refugees; Security Council Resolution 237/14-6-1967 calling upon Israel to facilitate the return of persons exiled by the 1967 war). The most prominent among the more recent resolutions confirming the Palestinian refugees’ right of return is GA Resolution 3089 issued on 7-12-1973. This Resolution reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes; it states that the right of return is a precondition for a just solution of the refugee issue and for the exercise of the right of self -determination. 
Resolution 3089 is important for several reasons: 

1.It was issued to explain Security Council Resolution 242 which had called for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” without defining the basis for such a settlement. 

2.The right of return was applicable to all of the land of Palestine. 

3.Resolution 3089 considers the right of return as a precondition for the practice of self-determination. 

Between 1949 and 1981, the UN General Assembly issued 32 resolutions affirming the right of return, the latest being resolution 36/146 of 16-12-1981, calling Israel to take practical steps towards the implementation of Resolution 194, based on the fact that Israel’s membership in the UN was conditioned by its approval of Resolutions 181 (1947 UN Partition Plan) and 194. 

Dr. Kamal Kuba’a (Legal Advisor to the Presidential Office) approached the issue of the right of return from the angle of basic human rights. Thus the right to leave one’s country and to return to it has been recognized as a basic right even in circumstances of war and occupation by numerous international agreements, and the forcible transfer of civilians outside an occupied territory has been banned (e.g. international military court agreement of Nuernberg, 1945; 1949 Geneva Convention and its 1977 extensions). Moreover, the right of return is rooted in all major international human rights declarations (e.g. 1948 International Declaration of Human Rights/ Paragraph 13: “any person has a right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to it”), as well as in regional agreements  (e.g. the 1951 European agreement on the protection of human rights, 1964 American agreement on human rights, 1986 African document on human rights and people) which all affirm that citizens must not be expelled from their country, nor be prevented from leaving or coming back to it. 

Then Dr. Kuba’a proceeded to pointing out the unique character of the right of return of the Palestinian people which differs from other refugee cases due to the fact that the Palestinian claim for this right has been upheld for half a century, giving evidence of the vitality of the Palestinian cause. He confirmed - as did Dr. `Issa before him - that the right of return was part of the natural rights of the Palestinian people and linked organically to its right of self-determination. He argued further, that the fact that Israel signed both Resolutions 181 and 194 as a condition for its admission to the United Nations and then disregarded and violated both, puts the legitimacy of Israel’s existence and membership in the UN into question. According to Dr. Kuba’a, UN Resolution 194, although issued by the General Assembly, must be seen as having binding character, due to the fact that it has served as the basis for numerous other resolutions and for the establishment of the UN Relief and Works Agency in Palestine (UNRWA), and due to its link with the right to self-determination. 

This workshop was attended by approximately 70 refugee activists, social workers, politicians, lawyers and researchers from the Bethlehem area. It was covered by three local TV stations and by the local Palestinian press. Although the debate was lively and interesting, the public failed to challenge the speakers. Thus the question whether Resolution 194 is at all terms of reference in the political negotiations in the framework of the Oslo Accords was not raised explicitly. Thus the Palestinian official experts presenting their position in this workshop did not really have to deal with this hairy question. 

 
index