On March 7, 1995, one-a-half years after the signing of the DOP, the Palestinians, Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian delegates met in Amman for the first round of negotiations on the modalities of the return of the Palestinian refugees exiled as a consequence of the 1967 war. Both Israel and the PLO had committed themselves to negotiate this issue in the framework of a four party Continuing Committee in September 1993 (DOP, Article 12). The first convention of the Committee came about after a considerable delay. Israel had been reluctant to open negotiations - the first since 1948 - about the collective return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland, even on the limited scale outlined by the DOP. Jordan was ready to join the Continuing Committee only after signing the separate peace agreement with Israel. 

The Arab delegations (PLO, Egypt, Jordan) had met for a preparatory meeting in Cairo on February 22, which according to Palestinian sources, contributed to the formulation of a united Arab position. The first official meeting in Amman involved foreign ministers and many experts, legal advisors, and bureaucrats of the four negotiating parties. The meeting began with a disappointment. Prior to the opening, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres had promised Arab delegates the immediate repatriation of 100 refugees as a “confidence building measure”. Peres did not keep his promise and the issue was dropped. 
Despite this, the Palestinian delegation evaluated this meeting as a success. Israeli efforts to strip the meeting of its official character and transform it into a non-committal preparatory event were successfully countered by the Arab delegations, which pressured for a final statement that would at least set structures and procedures for the future negotiations (see below). The reference to the Camp David Accords in the final statement sets a clear time-line for the return of the 1967 displaced persons, since these Accords provide that the 1967 displaced persons shall be readmitted during the interim period. 
A new and probably lengthy process of negotiation on the return of the 1967 refugees has begun. Numerous statements by Israeli and Palestinian officials made on the occasion of the official opening only re-emphasized the enormous gap between the two positions, and the first meeting in Amman did not deal with controversies about numbers and categories of refugees to be repatriated. Technical committees will have to handle these controversies in monthly meetings and to provide a basis for comprehensive decisions taken every two or three months by the foreign ministers of the four parties involved. 

Final Statement of the Meeting on 1967 Displaced Persons (Amman, March 7, 1995) 

1. Delegations from Israel, PLO, Jordan and Egypt met in Amman on March 7, 1995, as the Continuing Committee for the purpose of deciding by agreement the modalities of admission of Palestinians displaced from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967, together with necessary measures to prevent disruption and disorder and other matters of common concern. 

2. The ministerial meeting based its frame of reference on the DOP and its Annexes and Agreed Minutes, and on parallel clauses pertaining to displaced persons in the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty, and in the Camp David Accords. 

3. The four Parties agreed on the structure of the Continuing Committee for displaced persons, and on other matters of common concern, which would meet at ministerial and technical levels. With regard to the technical level, it was agreed that each delegation is to be composed of three permanent members at the senior level, joined by experts as needed. The venue of the meetings of each of the technical committee will be by rotation. The first meeting will be convened within a month from today. Thereafter, meetings will be held every three weeks. 
Meetings at the ministerial level will be held by rotation every two/three months. The technical level will report to the ministerial level. 

4. Relevant confidence building measures shall be discussed in the Continuing Committee. 

5. The Ministerial Committee reaffirms its commitment to the speedy solution of this question to enhance the peace process. 

Points of Controversy 

- The Problem of Definition: Who is a person displaced in 1967? 
While Israel promotes the minimalist definition including only Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip who fled due to the 1967 war and its immediate results, the Palestinian delegation presents a definition of 1967 displaced persons including three additional categories: 

•  Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip who were outside the country at the outbreak of the 1967 war and unable to return due to the war and its results (tens of thousands of persons working or studying abroad, persons on visits abroad, etc.)
• Palestinians deported by the Israeli authorities for alleged political activities after the 1967 war (approximately 1,100 Palestinians deported by Israel between 1967 and 1993 are still awaiting their return).
• Palestinians who were present in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during the 1967 war, but lost their right to live in the occupied territories due to the results of the war, i.e. occupation and restrictive residency laws/regulations. (According to PLO statistics, approximately 80,000 Palestinians who left for the purpose of study or work after 1967 could not renew their Israeli ID cards in time and are consequently prevented from returning home.)

- The Question of 1967 Refugees from East Jerusalem 
Although the Israeli delegation has not yet expressed its position explicitly, the official Israeli stand on this question is well known. Israel will demand the exclusion of Palestinians exiled from East Jerusalem due to the 1967 war on the pretext that issues pertaining to Jerusalem can be raised only in the negotiations on the final status, and not during the interim period. The Israeli refusal to release Palestinian political prisoners from East Jerusalem in the framework of prisoner releases scheduled for the interim period, and the explicit exclusion of East Jerusalem residents from all recent re-arrangements of family reunification procedures in the West Bank - always based on the above argument - serve as precedents. 
The Palestinian delegation, on the other hand, holds that East Jerusalem is an integral part of the West Bank occupied in 1967, and thus East Jerusalemites exiled due to the 1967 war and its results must be part of the agenda of the Continuing Committee for 1967 Displaced Persons. The Palestinian delegation also interprets all references to the West Bank in the final statement of the first meeting in Amman as including East Jerusalem, although it did not insist on raising the issue explicitly. 

The big gap between the numbers of 1967 displaced persons handled by Israeli (200,000 - 300,000) and Palestinian sources (800,000 - 1 mil.) are a result of these differences in categorization and time-frames applied. 

Israeli Responses to the Opening of the Negotiations on the 1967 Displaced Persons 
The Amman negotiations aroused various reactions from the Israeli government and the Israeli public, ranging from hard-line stances to attempts to stir up mass hysteria. 
From the outset, the talks were consistently discussed in reference to mass return, not only of 1967 refugees, but 1948 refugees as well. Government officials repeatedly tried to assuage their public with proclamations that mass return is an impossibility, while the right-wing opposition played at the heart of Israelis’ fear that the original owners of houses and land around the country will soon be banging on their doors. 
Prime Minister Rabin tried to pull an already dead rabbit out of the hat by stating “No to Mass Return, Yes to 2,000 Family Reunifications a Year” (3/3/95 Yediot Ahronot). As Rabin must have been briefed by his aides, Israel grudgingly agreed - after much pressure by the coalition of human rights organizations and lawyers on residency issues - to an annual quota of the approval of 2,000 family reunification applications in August 1993, even before the Oslo Agreement. Rabin’s ploy was quickly revealed. “... The Israeli policy, which Israeli officials presented as an Israeli readiness for compromise on the issue of displaced persons, is already in practice.” (Ha’aretz 5/3/95) 
The right-wing, however, still managed to portray the government’s rigid stance on 1967 refugees in the Amman talks as a harbinger of the mass return of both 1948 and 1967 refugees. MK Michael Eitan (Likud) said that “Israel’s agreement to transfer millions of refugees into the Land of Israel is an additional step in the government’s agreement to Auschwitz borders and Auschwitz conditions.” (Yediot Aharonot 3/3/95)