 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 July 2000 Issue No. 491 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 July 2000 Issue No. 491
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters 'Our homeland is not for sale'
By Rasha SaadPerceiving their cause as among the most pivotal in the Camp David talks, hundreds of Palestinian refugees marched through Bethlehem at the start of the summit. Protesters, who carried with them the keys to their houses that they were forced to flee at gun-point in 1948 , called on President Yasser Arafat not to compromise on their cause. In Jordan, home to nearly half of 4.5 million Palestinian refugee scattered worldwide, professional syndicates started a campaign to collect 2 million signatures on a petition insisting on their right of return.
Early this week, Arafat reportedly threatened to walk out of the Camp David talks after the US suggested a verbal proposal on the refugees issue that was described by the Palestinian delegation as "pro-Israeli."
According to Palestinian negotiators, the US proposal did not differ from that made by Israel during the talks. Israel suggested that it was ready to make a "substantial contribution to an international organisation, which will be set up to deal with the rehabilitation of the refugees and a limited right of return [for tens of thousands] within the framework of family reunification," said an Israeli official. The Israelis, meanwhile, will not accept any legal or moral responsibility for creating the refugee problem, beyond expressing sorrow for their suffering. According to the same Israeli official, the funds will be disbursed by the Palestinian state. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon will also receive aid with the aim of settling and improving the refugees' living conditions. Israel also demands that the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) -- which is a special body created after 1948 to provide Palestinian refugees with basic services in the occupied Palestinian territories, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon -- should be disbanded and replaced by the new international organisation.
The proposal was described by Palestinians as "failing to meet even the minimum of the Palestinian rights." According to Salman Abu Sitta, member of the Palestine National Congress and a renowned expert on the refugees issue, under this proposal Israel is speaking about nearly 70,000 Palestinians. "That is 1.5 per cent of the refugees. Judging by its record, Israel's mode of its application is replete with conditions, obstacles, documents and delays such that it is rendered meaningless," he told Al-Ahram Weekly.
For the Palestinians, accepting the proposal also simply means that they are tearing up UN resolution 194 of December 1948. The resolution stipulated the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to receive compensation for the losses they suffered in addition to reparations for war crimes. Adherence to this UN resolution had been a central Palestinian stand since the opening of direct talks with Israel in Oslo in 1993.
Israel, however, has always rejected the Palestinians' right of return, claiming that it bears little responsibility for their flight and had directly asked Arab countries to settle them in their countries. Even before the establishment of Israel in 1948, creating a Jewish majority in Palestine had been a cornerstone in the Zionist ideology. Israel also argues that allowing millions of Palestinians to return would change the demographic balance and threaten the Jewish character of the state.
According to UNRWA figures in 1997, there were nearly 3.5 million registered refugees in its "area of operation" (West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon), plus another 1.5 million non-registered refugees and displaced persons, according to Palestinian estimates.
Khaled Turaani, Palestinian executive director of the US-based group American Muslims for Jerusalem, also rejected the Israeli proposal backed by the United States. He argued that the right of both return and compensation is "sacred and not negotiable." "My right to go back to my home is sacred... I do not want to go to any place in the world but to Tiberia in my homeland," he told Al-Ahram Weekly in a telephone interview.
"Agreement on any Israeli proposal that grants the Palestinians donations in exchange for their right to return is a deal that gives legitimacy to ethnic cleansing. Our homeland is not for sale," he added.
The Palestinian leadership had also refused the implications of the Israeli proposal, conditioning the recognition of the Palestinian state to abandoning the refugees' right of return. According to Abu Sitta "a state, devoid of any element of real sovereignty, approved and controlled by the occupier, is not worth one iota of a basic right forfeited."
A poll conducted in September 1999 by the Palestinian Authority, showed that 90.8 per cent of Palestinian respondents did not agree to give up the right of return in favour of a state.
Meanwhile, demonstrations and protests held by Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan and Lebanon indicated that they held little hope that these talks will bring an end to their plight. Hence, they believe that if Israel insists on its stance, it would be better for Camp David not to yield an agreement, rather than an agreement that sacrifices their rights.
"If there is no deal in Camp David it is not the end of the world. We were able to resist and survive for the last 52 years and we are willing to continue doing that," said Turaani.
