[shniad at sfu.ca: [R-G] An Inalienable Right]

[Hans Ehrbar]

------- Start of forwarded message -------

Outlook – Canada’s Progressive Jewish Magazine	 Vol. 41 No. 1 Jan/Feb 2003

The Right of Return: An Inalienable Right

By Dr. Ismail Zayid

The Zionist movement, throughout its history, and as articulated by all its
leaders from Theodor Herzl to Ariel Sharon, planned and effected, through
massacres, intimidation and psychological warfare, a process of ethnic
cleansing to expel the Palestinian people from their native land.

Theodor Herzl wrote in his diaries in 1896, “We shall try to spirit the
penniless population across the border ... Both the process of expropriation
and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and
circumspectly” (from R. Patai ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl,
Vol. 1).

David Ben-Gurion, in a letter to his son Amos in 1937, confided that when
the Jewish state came into being, “We will expel the Arabs and take their
places. Later, Ben-Gurion, while visiting the newly conquered city of
Nazareth in July 1948, exclaimed, “Why are there so many Arabs left here?
Why didn’t you expel them?”

Joseph Weitz, the Jewish Agency chief representative, also stated that he
and other Zionist leaders concluded in 1940 that there was “no room for both
peoples together in this country”. The achievement of Zionist objectives, he
realized, required “a Palestine or at least Western Palestine (West of the
Jordan River) without Arabs”. He wrote that it was necessary “to transfer
the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries – to transfer all of them, and
only after such transfer would the country be able to absorb millions of our
brethren”.

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 brought about the expulsion
of over 750,000 Palestinians from their historic homeland. This calculated
policy was followed by the destruction of over 400 Palestinian towns and
villages, so as to prevent the return of the refugees to their homes. These
refugees, together with their children and grandchildren, number around 4
million people, living mostly in intolerable conditions in refugee camps in
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for the last 54
years. Their determination to return to their homes has not waned or
faltered. They constitute the largest and most persistent refugee problem in
the world.

The Right of Return (ROR) is sacred and legal. It is enshrined in
international law and repeated UN resolutions. Article 13 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to leave any
country including his own, and to return to his country”. On December 11,
1948, The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolution #194, of
which paragraph 11 states 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 the 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 ….

“Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation,
resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the
payment of compensation.”

The Conciliation Commission for Palestine has given a careful interpretation
of paragraph 11:

“The General Assembly has laid down the principle of the right of the
refugees to exercise a free choice between returning to their homes and
being compensated for the loss of or damage to their property on the one
hand, or, on the other. of not returning to their homes and being adequately
compensated for the value of the property abandoned by them” (Para. 38; UN
Doc. A/AC. 25/w.81/Rev.2 at 20-21).

The UN Secretariat, reviewing the drafting of Resolution #194, confirmed
that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the
right of exercising a free choice as to their future” (UN Doc. A/AC.25/w.45,
1950).

It is vital to observe that the ROR is an individual right, with emphasis,
in these UN resolutions, on the free choice for each refugee to exercise
this right. This point is fundamental in the current political context,
making it illegal and unacceptable for any other body, be it the U.S.,
Israel or the Palestinian Authority (PA), to bargain away this individual
right. Furthermore, the emphasis in this resolution is that the refugees
have the free choice to return to their homes, and not merely to a future
Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, as some political manoeuvres
may imply.

In the context of Resolution #194, the international community felt a deep
responsibility for this tragedy, as expressed by the UN Mediator in
Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, who stated, “It would be an offence
against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the
conflict were denied the right of return to their homes” (UN Doc. A. 648,
1948). Tragically, Count Bernadotte, a man of nobility and honour, paid
dearly for making this point of elemental justice. He was assassinated on
September 17, 1948 in Jerusalem, by the terrorist “Stern gang”, on the
orders of its leader (and later prime minister of Israel) Yitzhak Shamir.

It is interesting to note that Resolution #194 has been reaffirmed by the UN
over a hundred times, but “the earliest practicable date” has not yet
arrived, 54 years later.

It is of relevance to point out that the implementation of Resolution #194,
as well as the Partition Resolution #181, was a condition stipulated in the
admission of Israel to the UN, as per Resolution #273, of May 11, 1949.
Thus. it can be reasonably argued that Israel’s UN membership is
illegitimate, given its refusal to implement these conditions.

The process of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was continued in 1967,
when Israel expelled another 300,000 Palestinian refugees from the West
Bank, many of them expelled for the second time. The UN Security Council
ordered their return, as per Resolution #237 of June 14. 1967. Thirty-five
years later this resolution remains unimplemented.

Another incredible aspect of the Israeli creation of refugees and denial of
their ROR is the experience of Palestinian Israeli citizens. Of the 1.2
million Palestinian citizens of Israel, approximately 250,000 are to this
day refugees in Israel. They are called, in the Orwellian Zionist lexicon,
“present absentees”. They acquired this label for having been away from
their homes in 1948 – even if only for a single day – yet still remaining
within the (pre-1967) boundaries of Israel. On the basis of this lsraeli
determination, their homes and land have been illegally confiscated for the
benefit of Russian and other immigrants of Jewish religion or origin.
Israel, we are told, is a “Jewish state”, not a state of all its citizens.

It is relevant to point out that the right of Palestinian refugees to return
to their homes is not only legal but physically possible. Demographic
studies show that about 78% of Israeli Jews live in 14% of Israel (within
the “Green Line”). About 20% live in a few Palestinian cities, and the
remaining 2% live on 86% of the land, which belongs to the refugees. (This
is documented in a study by Professor Salman Abu Sitta. a specialist in
demographic studies, in his paper “An End to Exile”, Al-Ahram Weekly, March
9-15 2000).

The point is often raised by the State of Israel and its supporters that the
return of Palestinian refugees would threaten the “Jewish character” of the
State. This is a strange argument for a state that claims to be a true
democracy. No democratic state would characterize itself according to the
religious or ethnic affiliation of its citizens. The claim by Israel that it
is the state of the Jewish people, be they in America, Russia, India or
Africa, rather than a state for all its citizens, is a contradiction of all
claims to democracy. Surely the Palestinian refugees, who were
systematically cleansed from their native land, have a clear priority over
the immigration from Russia or Argentina that Mr. Sharon is pushing for. Be
that as it may, it must be emphasized that the Palestinians have a legal
right to make an individual choice to return to their homes or accept
compensation, as UN resolution #194 states. In all probability, a large
number of Palestinian refugees would choose compensation over return, but
the choice must remain theirs.

The question has also been raised whether, in the event of the
implementation of the ROR, the creation of a binational state in
Palestine/Israel might be the preferred outcome. I strongly believe that a
binational state for Jews and Arabs, providing equal rights for all its
citizens regardless of their religious or ethnic identification, is the best
ultimate outcome for peace and security for all the people in the area.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that securing this elemental principle
of justice for the Palestinian refugees – the free choice to return to their
homes – is a vital element in obtaining peace and security for both Israelis
and Palestinians in this tortured land. ·

Dr. Ismail Zayid was born and grew up in Beit Nuba, Palestine, and went to
school in Jerusalem. He received his medical education at the University of
London, and immigrated to Canada in 7972. He is the author two books,
Palestine: A Stolen Heritage and Zionism: The Myth and the Reality. He
appeared in our Sept./Oct. 2001 issue with an article, “Canada Park:
Canadian Complicity in a War Crime.”


------- End of forwarded message -------