Article74 Magazine

 
New Israeli-Palestinian Position Paper on the Refugee Question 

On 9 September 1998, Ha'aretz diplomatic correspondent David Makovski summarizes a yet unpublished discussion report formulating the basis of a possible future Israeli-Palestinian compromise on the Palestinian refugee question. The discussion was organized by the Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs between 1995-8. Participants on the Israeli side were Shimon Shamir/former Israeli ambassador to Egypt and Jordan, Moshe Ma'oz/Hebrew University orientalist, Ze'ev Shiff/Ha'aretz security correspondent, Gabriel Ben-Dror/former rector of Haifa University, and Yossi Katz/MK Labor. Palestinian participants were Yezid Sayigh/head of the Palestinian arms control talks and Cambridge University academic, intellectual Ibrahim Dakkak, and political analyst Ghassan Khatib. The report was co-authored by Joseph Alpher/former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies and now Israel Director of the American Jewish Committee and Khalil Shekaki/Center for Palestine Research & Studies, Nablus.

Summary:

The report outlines the compromise position of each side; both are premised on the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The Palestinian compromise position is that while there will be no en masse return of refugees, the right of return remains a principle. Those not returning to Israel proper would be allowed to return to the Palestinian state. The absorptive capacity of the Palestinian state, not the Israeli position, would determine the actual number of those able to return to the state. Refugees wishing to remain in Arab host countries may be resettled there if the host countries agree. Those not exercising the right of return would receive individual compensation. Collective compensation would be paid to the Palestinian state and used for rehabilitation and absorption projects. Israel would carry the sole responsibility for finding and providing the two types of compensations, possibly under an international umbrella. To ensure the permanent nature of the agreement, refugee camps would be dismantled and UNRWA dissolved.

The Israeli compromise position includes four elements: 

1. Sharing the practical, but not moral, responsibility for the 1948 refugee problem - "Israel recognizes that the historical process culminating in the 1948 war generated a refugee problem that caused great suffering to the Palestinian people. As Israel, the Arab countries and the Palestinians all participated in this historical process, all parties share, at least to some extent, the responsibility for the injustices of the past and for the plight of the Palestinians."
2. Reaching a practical understanding with the Palestinians on the number of refugees permitted to enter their state -  "to harmonize the inflow of refugees with Palestinian absorptive capacities" ..."Israel drops its demand for direct physical control over the inflow of refugees to the Palestinian state."
3. Financial compensation - The Israeli sides links between compensation payments to the Palestinian and Arab states with compensation to be paid by Arab states to Jewish refugees of 1948. Israel views compensation to both sides as collective. Israel may halt its compensation payments to the Palestinian government and Arab states, if the Palestinians accept more refugees than they can absorb.
4. Family Reunification - While insisting that the Palestinians renounce the right of return to Israel, Israel agrees to consider repatriation of up to "tens of thousands" under a family reunification program.

Several issues remain unresolved. According to UNRWA statistics, the number of refugees is just below 3.5 million. The Palestinian side holds that, including progeny, there are 4.9 million, while Israel believes the number to be "UNRWA minus."  Palestinians want Israel to accept responsibility for the creation of the refugee question and to "fully acknowledge" the "collective moral right of return to Palestine ... but without demanding the actual return of all refugees to their homes." Palestinians believe that compensation must be both individual and collective and not linked to Arab compensation payments to Jewish refugees of 1948 (as this only leaves Palestinians penniless). The size of the Palestinian state is another point of disagreement: The Palestinians say that the larger their state, the more people they can absorb. The Israeli side does not accept this linkage saying that this is a matter for government negotiators and not academics.

 
index