Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Palestinians and the Right of Return

by ISSAM MUFID NASHASHIBI

Last Friday Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Cooperation, Nabil Shaath, told reporters in Beirut that “politically, the only solution is through the right to return,” and that “there is place for all the Palestinians of Lebanon in Gaza, Tulkarm or Qalqilya, but their homes are elsewhere.”

Shaath’s statement may mollify his Lebanese and Palestinian audience by saying what they wanted to hear.

That brought out Israel’s ire and an almost immediate reaction to it by Nabil Amr, Palestinian Information Minister that a ‘pragmatic solution’ in negotiations with Israel will have to be found. “The right of return issue will be solved only in agreement with Israel. We will not harm the Jewish character of the state of Israel and the solution will therefore be pragmatic,” Amr said to Israeli Army radio.

What Amr may be referring to is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) solution for the Palestinian refugees which was developed by Donna Arzt in her 1996 CFR-published book “Refugees into Citizens: Palestinians and the End of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” In it, Ms. Arzt proposes that Palestinians be “absorbed” by the states in which they reside, except for a maximum of 75,000 refugees from Lebanon to return to Israel if they can prove that they resided there before 1948, still have close relatives living in Israel and agree to live there in peace: i.e. a few senior citizen who would not reproduce and die within twenty years.

The book claims that Israel would accept this “symbolic” return without having to admit responsibility for the refugee problem because it will be positioned as part of a “regional absorption” effort while giving the Arab states the political cover to assert that Israel has already complied with UN resolution 194.

CFR’s Richard W. Murphy, found “empirical” evidence to support this solution and thus enthusiastically endorsed a recent opinion survey, conducted by Khalil Shikaki, on the Palestinian right of return claiming that only 10% of the refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria would return to Israel.

Shikaki’s survey seems to be the latest attempt at managing the expectations of Palestinians about their right of return; a basic human right guaranteed by international law and UN resolution 194 that Israel had accepted as a condition of its entry in the UN.

This expectation management effort appears to be aimed at recovering from the failure of the two most recent similar projects, which are the Ayalon-Nusseibeh agreement, and a 2001 survey of Palestinian refugee attitudes on permanent status by Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI).

In late 2001, the former head of the infamous Israeli secret police, Ami Ayalon, and Sari Nusseibeh, the past Palestinian Authority representative in Jerusalem agreed to, and promoted, the notion that a two state solution denies Palestinians the right to return to their homes within Israel. Understandably, this individual agreement met refugee opposition and failed to manage their expectations.

The IPCRI venture did not hide its objective to “manage the expectations of Palestinian refugees.” IPCRI undertook a yearlong initiative including “48 Town Meetings in nine refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza.” Instead of “managing” refugee expectations, the August 2001 survey results showed overwhelming support for international legitimacy as the basis for negotiating the refugee problem and that ‘compensation’ is not a substitute for the right of return.

As public opinions on such a basic issue do not normally change to the extreme opposite in such a short time and without a major political shock to society, Shikaki’s poll results are therefore rendered very unconvincing. No wonder Palestinian refugee groups, including 95 refugee groups in Lebanon, rejected the survey results vociferously.

As an individual who has commissioned and designed market research surveys, it is obvious to me that the purported poll outcome is a direct result of questions that were composed to guide the respondent’s answers towards a specific outcome.

In defending his methodology, Mr. Shikaki opined that although the respondents were not restricted to the survey’s prepared answers, they nevertheless chose to stay with the pre-arranged answers, which did not offer the right of return to Israel as an option. He should be the first to know that people who chose to “cooperate” with a survey tend to respond to questions and are not inclined to provide “creative” answers, especially where declaring a politically charged opinion may lead to an indictment for incitement.

Another indicator of the pre-judged survey outcome is that the poll ignores the opinions of diaspora Palestinians not living in refugee camps because the survey assumed they “self-absorbed” in the societies in which they reside and would not wish to return.

To the Arab media, Mr. Shikaki justified his survey design because it strictly measures refugee reactions to the January 2001 tentative “Taba Agreement.” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. An agreement that, like Arzt’s CFR solution, pays lip service to UN resolution 194 by calling for Palestinian refugees to return to a Palestinian state, while a nominal few return to Israel.

Contradicting himself, Mr. Shikaki wrote in a July 30, 2003 Wall Street Journal opinion that his survey indicates that Palestinians reject the right of return to their homes in Israel and “favor identity over land and legacy.” His conclusion is based on a false premise that a two state solution “logically” implies “a division of the people [of mandatory Palestine] with some becoming Israeli and others Palestinian.”

The Shikaki survey is the latest inherently racist effort at rejecting Palestinian rights in favor of an exclusively Jewish state. It is destined to join its predecessors, including denying the existence of Palestine or the Palestinians. The demise of the right of return will prove to be, like the premature report of Mark Twain’s death, exaggerated.

ISSAM MUFID NASHASHIBI, US Director of Deir Yassin Remembered , is a Palestinian-American freelance writer on Israel/Palestine issues who can be reached at inashashibi@hotmail.com

 

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]