An Arabic version of this article was published in July, 2001

By Masad Arbid
September 6, 2001

In its "Issue Paper Series", the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) published recently a booklet entitled The Palestinian Right of Return by Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish. In addition to the printed booklet, the study is also posted on the ADC website. It provides information about the Palestinian right of return and the rights of Palestinian refugees and presents some of the fundamental aspects of these problems. This article intends to debate some of the most pressing issues covered in this booklet.

The Importance of the booklet

The ADC booklet is important for several reasons:

1. The subject of the booklet: Palestinian right of return and the rights of Palestinian refugees. The booklet is published at a critical juncture in the context of the Palestinian problem as the Palestinian right of return faces serious attempts of termination on the grounds of the Oslo agreement. This agreement has, finally and clearly, stated the official position of the PLO and Arab regimes on the problem of Palestinian refugees and their right of return after three decades of camouflage.

2. The problem of Palestinian refugees and the right of return has become the main political stimulus for Arab-Palestinian activism in North America as of late 1999. This activism was further ignited by the Boston Conference about the Palestinian right of return (organized by TARI, April 2000). On the grounds of this political slogan, the Palestinian right of return (PROR) and its goals, several organizations and committees are now leading the political life of the Arab and Palestinian community and supporting the Palestinian cause in North America[1]. Since this slogan is the stimulus and the foundation of this political activism, it becomes, therefore, necessary to inquire whether there is an agreement on its implications and political content on one hand, and the methods for its realization on the other.

3. The booklet is also important since the ADC has a leading position in organizing and activating the Arab community in North America.

4. The authors state in the introduction of the booklet, that the "purpose of this study is to present the case for the Palestinian right of return in its most fundamental aspects" and "it is intended as a guide and handbook for those who advocate on behalf of these refugees and their rights". (p. 4) The study also intends to provide a set of tools for the activists as it draws attention to the arguments against the right of return and provides effective responses to those arguments. If this is the case, then debating the authors' positions on those issues is of utmost importance, hence this critique.

Palestinian refugees: An occupation of their homeland or just an expulsion?

In providing the background information regarding the problem of the Palestinian refugees, the booklet presents some demographic data and the UN resolutions that were issued in that regard. The booklet stands to confront the Zionist attempts of misrepresentation when they blame the Arab leaders for ordering the Palestinians to leave their homes in 1948. The authors also criticize statements made by Eli Wiesel who wrote, "Incited by their leaders 600,000 Palestinians left the country convinced that, once Israel was vanquished, they would be able to return home". (p. 11) In their explanation the authors, however, do not mention the historical events that took place in Palestine, which in turn created the problem of refugees. The booklet confines itself by saying "following their expulsion in 1948" without mentioning the Zionist occupation of Palestine in 1948 and the creation of the Zionist state of Israel as the principal cause for the problem of Palestinian refugees and their expulsion. The study avoids dealing with these issues and moves on to confirm the international law that supports and calls for the protection of these rights.

The lack of documenting the occupation of Palestine and the creation of the Zionist state - Israel, and the lack of connecting those two events with the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians lead to the impression that the Zionist entity may have existed in Palestine before the 1948 Nakba. It may also give the impression that the Palestine War 1948 was just one massacre that took place against the Palestinians as an ethnic minority that lived along with the Jews, a massacre that ultimately lead to the expulsion of those Palestinians from a "Jewish state" or maybe a "bi-national state". This, in the final analysis, and from a legal and historical standpoint, legitimizes the Zionist occupation and the creation of the Zionist state-Israel. Such a position could also lead to the total termination of the right of return, since it gives the appearance that Palestine is divided into two states: one for the Jews (the territories occupied in 1948) and another for the Arab-Palestinians (the territories occupied in 1967). Therefore, the problem of the Palestinian refugees can be solved by their return to the later.

The authors continue to ignore this issue even when they respond to another Zionist argument that attempts to release Israel from its responsibilities towards the Palestinian refugees. This argument claims that the Palestinian refugees left their homes by orders of Palestinian and Arab leaders. Even in their response to this argument, the authors state, "this argument depends on the wholesale falsification of history and the denial that Palestinians were forcibly expelled as a direct result of Zionist military actions". They continue to say, "there is no doubt that significant acts of expulsion of Palestinians took place throughout the conflict". (p. 10)

Although this confirms one part of the historical facts about the events that took place in 1948, it avoids entirely the acknowledgement of the Zionist occupation. In fact, forceful expulsion and Zionist military actions do not rise to the level of the Zionist colonial-settler occupation of Palestine. The authors do not explain that the Zionist state did not exist before that.

There is no doubt that the authors are aware of the historical and political significance and weight of these facts. It is unlikely that matters of such clarity and significance are not well known to the authors particularly as Arabs who are interested in international law and its principles.

The suppression of these facts, as we will see later, is one component of a comprehensive political stand. It should be noted, however, that this stand is not unique to the ADC or the authors of this booklet. Whether it is stated frankly or implicitly, this is, actually, the position of many Palestinian and Arab politicians, intellectuals, academicians, and political organizations and groups in North America and in Arab countries.

This position can be summarized in the following: The Zionist occupation of Palestine in 1948 and the recognition of the Zionist state - Israel that was established on the soil of Palestine as a result of that occupation, are issues that have been "normalized" and accepted as Realpolitik. Although this acceptance is frequently implicit. Therefore, the conclusion continues, Israel is here to stay and the Palestinian -Arab struggle against the Zionist occupation and for the liberation of Palestine is not an item on the agenda on many of these organizations. .

Accordingly, political activism that is supportive of the Palestinian right of return and the human political and national rights of Palestinian refugees is based on international legitimacy, UN resolutions (General Assembly and Security Council), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc… (p. 6) Thus, the booklet confirms that "for Palestinians the recognition of the right of return is an essential element of reconciliation with Israel and a just resolution to the conflict".

The Palestinian Refugees and the Absence of the Pan-Arab Dimension

The authors refute the Zionist argument that claims the problem of Palestinian refugees still exits "only because the Arab states deliberately kept the refugees in camps in order to put political pressure on Israel". (p. 12) In their response to this argument, the authors confirm that the problem of Palestinian refugees is not only a humanitarian one, but a political one also. "But the fact is that, by and large, Palestinians did not want to be assimilated, fearing correctly that assimilation would be used as a substitute for their legitimate national and individual rights". (p.12)

The booklet criticizes this argument because it assumes that the final settlement of Palestinians should be outside 'Israel' instead of the struggle for their human and national rights. (p.12) Although there may be no disagreement with this position, the risk is, however, in the authors' approach in arriving to these conclusions.

The booklet ignores the relationship between the Palestinian refugees, the Arab masses and the "Arab macro" (Arab homeland, nation, reality, and environment). It does not explain the pan-Arab nature and character of the Palestinian problem and refugees. The authors speak of the Palestinian right of return as a human demand first and then as a political and national (Palestinian) or qutri[2] one. By doing that, they ignore the pan -Arab dimension of the Palestinian cause, the cause for which the Arab nation and masses had made many sacrifices over the period of one century and which they had considered their central cause.

It is true that the Arab masses in this epoch of our history are unable to contribute to the Palestinian struggle. The reasons for that, however, are:

1. The brutal and continuous oppression of the Arab regimes that had rendered these masses paralyzed.

2. The weakness and decline of the Arab political parties and social organizations.

3. The lack of adequate and strong leadership.

This, however, should not conceal the fact that the liberation of Palestine from Zionist occupation, the Palestinian right of return and the rights of the Palestinian refugees remain the central themes for the struggle of the Arab nation.

This process of "Palestinization" of the Palestinian struggle (isolating and de-linking the Palestinian struggle from the comprehensive struggle of the Arab masses and Arab nation) is a phenomenon that is noteworthy since it became characteristic for the dominant forces in the Palestinian National Movement and its leadership in the last three decades. It is confirmed in the practices of the Palestinian National Movement and leadership in spite of claiming the contrary. For example, many Palestinian leaders verbally insist that the battle for the liberation of Palestine is a pan-Arabic one and that the Palestinian cause is the central issue in the Arab struggle, while in practice they insist that the Palestinian cause and decisions should remain solely Palestinian (qutri). This is being accomplished behind the camouflage of "protecting the independence of Palestinian decisions". Because of this process, we have observed how the struggle has changed its name and qualifications through the past century from a Zionist-Arab struggle to an Israeli-Arab struggle and today it became the Palestinian-Israeli struggle. The day may not be far when we wake up to find that the struggle has been transformed into a dispute between 'Israel' and the city of Jerusalem or the city of Hebron, if the Palestinian National Movement and its leadership continue to uproot the Palestinian struggle from its Arabic macro-environment. Many Palestinians justify this position by stating that "Arabs" and "Arab masses" are not effective and, in that sense, do not contribute to the Palestinian struggle and many 'grieve' the 'Arab's abandonment' of their brothers, the Palestinians. By so doing, they confuse and mix the oppressive dictator Arab regimes and the Arab masses.

By taking this position, the authors follow the same path of many Palestinian and Arab intellectuals, academicians, and politicians: the path of "turning their back" to the pan -Arab content and dimension of the Palestinian struggle. They also ignore the facts of history that confirm, through an entire century, that the division among Arabs and the fragmentation of the Arab homeland were accomplished for the purpose of imposing the imperialist-capitalist hegemony over them. This project, the imperialist-capitalist-Zionist project, aims at maintaining the division among the Arabs and keeping total domination over their resources and economy. It is due to and through this process of division and fragmentation, that the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian National Movement had surrendered the PLO program of liberating Palestine and ended with the 'Oslo deal'. The Oslo Agreement, from inception, had for its primary objective, the disengagement of the Palestinian cause from its pan-Arabic national - qawmi[3] context. By doing that, the Palestinian cause was rendered isolated and a vulnerable victim for termination.

It is important to note that the authors and the ADC are not alone in this stand. Many Arab and Palestinian intellectuals and political activists in North America have taken positions that ignore and contradict the fundamentals of the Arab-Zionist struggle. The Arab-American community, passively, receives these positions as mere 'point of view' and 'everyone has the right to express his/her opinion' (the freedom of speech). Many are fascinated by these positions and eager to disseminate them with pride and enthusiasm. However, these positions are not simply an expression of opinion or freedom of speech. They, on the contrary, represent the fundamental positions and interest of these groups and individuals.[4]

Mistreatment of the Palestinian Refugees by the Arab Leaders

The authors state, "It is certainly true that some Arab States have badly mistreated Palestinian refugees". (p. 12) They mention this again when they state "Israel has done more than any country to make life in the refugee camps of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as miserable as possible throughout its 33-year occupation of these territories". (p.13) [Emphasis added].

There is no disagreement with the authors on this position. The problem arises when they fail to recognize the oppressive nature of Arab regimes. These regimes, in the first place, did not arrive to power as a result of free and legitimate elections. In result, they do not represent the Arab masses and their interests. They also oppress their peoples and masses (not only the Palestinian), which is one of the main reasons why the Arab revolutionary and progressive movement is defeated. The question, then, becomes: why do the authors mention mistreatment of Palestinians only without mentioning that these very same regimes oppress their own people too? These regimes did not isolate and mistreat only the Palestinians. The point is, these regimes have mistreated the Palestinians because of the policy of these regimes, their nature, and the class interest of the ruling classes, and not because they "picked on" the Palestinians.

Additionally, the authors fail to explain the position of the Arab masses when they refused to allow the Palestinian refugees to assimilate in Arab societies. This position was driven by Arab national (qawmi) interest and by protecting the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian right of return and the rights of Palestinian refugees. This is in absolute harmony with the position of the Palestinian refugees when they also refused to assimilate because they wanted to preserve their cause. Thus, we see the complete cohesion of the position of the Palestinian and the Arab masses.

Based on this understanding, one can see that the authors, and, for that matter, all political activists, should differentiate between the oppressive Arab regimes and the Arab masses and to confirm the oppressive nature of these regimes. This issue becomes even more important when we write educational booklets addressing the international public opinion and the supporters of the Palestinian struggle.

Immigrant Arab Jews are Zionist-settlers as well

The authors present the Zionist argument that suggests "the right of return for Palestinians is invalidated because in 1948 and afterward hundreds of thousands of Jews moved or were expelled from Arab countries and settled in Israel". (p. 13) they respond by saying that this is an exchange of populations "which in turn legitimizes the ethnic cleansing and permanent expulsion of Palestinians from Israel". (p.13) They also confirm that "this argument makes a mockery of the principles of refugee rights enshrined in the Human Rights Law and conceives of people not as individuals with rights inherent to their status as human beings, but as members of collectivities to be gathered together in the most exclusive ethno national enclaves. (p. 13)

The authors defy historical facts when they do not explain that Arab Jews were not expelled from Arab countries. The truth is that the Arab Jews left the Arab countries, and were not expelled, when they decided to emigrate and settle in the newly established State of Israel in 1948 and thereafter[5]. The departure of Arab Jews from their original homelands was a part of the Zionist -settler project of colonizing Palestine. In this regard, they are Zionist settlers-invaders like the Ashkenazi (white European Jews) who came from Europe to occupy Palestine and create a Zionist entity on its soil[6].

The other important issue that the authors neglected and exhibited no effort in arguing can be summarized in the following question: Even if we were to suppose, that the Arab governments have expelled or caused to expel the Jews from the Arab countries, what is the responsibility of the Palestinian people in that regard and how does it become acceptable, ethically and politically, that the Palestinian people and refugees pay the price for the policies and the practices of the Arab regimes? As mentioned earlier, these regimes do not represent, and never did, their own peoples nor the Palestinian people. It is important to emphasize the fact that the Arab regimes, by their nature, are compradoric and dependent for their very survival on imperialism and its interests in the Arab homeland. These regimes were originally founded by the support of the capitalistic imperialism to perform a function, and to serve a project: the protection of the imperialist interests in our region. They, the Arab regimes, continue to receive support and protection, to ensure their survival and ability to perform their duties and oppress Arab masses and any potential popular revolt. Again, we have to always differentiate between the ruling Arab regimes and the popular Arab masses if we are to present an accurate and objective analysis.

Immigrant Arab Jews and Palestinian Refugees: The Impossible Symmetry

The authors state, "It is no doubt true that some, perhaps many, Israeli Jews with origins in the Arab world could be classified as refugees and have legitimate claims on property and return. While some interest in the property recovery has been exposed, there is no movement for these communities to return for the reason outlined above. Indeed, Israel has never fought for Jews to remain in their homelands. Rather, it has consistently campaigned to bring them to Israel. Nevertheless, supporters of international law and refugee rights must uphold all Jewish claims to exercise these rights as much as they do for Palestinians or any other set of refugees". (p. 14)

At the first glance, it appears that the authors have attempted to take a position that is humanitarian, fair, and based on equality.

Upon careful reading, however, one will find an astonishing paradox.

1. The authors hint, directly or indirectly, to the symmetry and equality between Palestinian refugees and immigrant Arab Jews suggesting that their causes have or should have the same weight and equality. This means the equality and symmetry between the Palestinian refugees that were killed, expelled, uprooted from their homeland (that was also occupied) on the one hand, and immigrant Jews (not refugee) who came from Arab countries as invaders-settlers and occupiers of the same country from which the Palestinian refugees were expelled. In other words, this is a symmetry between the immigrant/invader and the refugee/victim.

   This astonishing paradox may well be a reflection of the distorted vision and the loss of national identity of some Arabs who reside in the US and the West. It could also be the result of the influence of the Zionist and Western media in shaping their understanding of historical circumstances.

2. This symmetry also distorts the truth about the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe of 1948) and the occupation of Palestine and minimizes the dimensions of the Palestinian question. It conceals the primary culprit: the Zionist colonization and occupation of Palestine. Isn't that occupation what brought the Arab Jews to Palestine as part of a Zionist project that aimed at the creation of a settler-colonial racist state founded on theological-biblical claims and the purity of the 'Jewish genus'?

Immigrant Arab Jews: Rewarding the Occupation

As mentioned above, the authors confirm their support for the rights and claims of the Arab Jews on property and return to their countries of origin (the Arab Countries). This position is based on the classification of these Arab Jews as refugees who enjoy legitimate rights and claims in properties and right to return to countries (that they left by their choice).

In this regard, we would like to offer the following observations:

1. The issue of the Arab Jews and their rights is disputed among historians and politicians. If the authors deemed it necessary to mention it, they could have done that as a disputed matter, one that is left for the experts to resolve.

   It is, however, a curious question: why would the authors make such assumptions and accept the credibility and fairness of the claims of the Arab Jews and declare their support without really researching the facts or at least leaving the entire issue to the historians and experts?

   For example, is there any documentation of the properties of Arab Jews in Arab countries? Or, the authors may have relied on the western European position, which is supportive of Zionism or intimidated by it and its powerful financial and media institutions? Is this position, in the final analysis, perhaps, in harmony with and deeply rooted in the attitude of the White European West?

2. If the authors' opinion was, in deed, based on the ethics and principles of human rights, international law, and justice, then we have the right to question the ethics of their position that equates and holds symmetry between the immigrant Arab Jews on the one hand, and the Palestinian refugees on the other.

3. The authors ask the "supporters of international law and refugee rights to uphold all Jewish claims to exercise these rights as much as they do for Palestinians or any other set of refugees". (p. 14) Aren't the authors, here, violating the very same human and ethical values that they claim to adhere to and defend? Doesn't that position make a mockery of the facts of history and the intelligence of the readers? How is it possible to hold symmetry and equality between the Zionist who came to Palestine as an invader/settler (among them, of course, the Arab Jews) and the Palestinian refugee who was expelled as a victim of that same Zionist occupation? How could one, from an ethical and political standpoint, find harmony between the occupier and the victim of occupation? Is the occupier/invader, here, being rewarded for his crime behind the slogan of human rights?

   This method of analysis, in a wider context, is identical, although may differ in some details, to the imperialist approach used to justify aggression and military interventions against other nations (Iraq and Yugoslavia as examples): the slogan of protecting democracy and human rights, humanitarian imperialism.

Do Immigrant Arab Jews Constitute a Political Movement?

The Zionist argument, that the authors respond to, suggests "that the right of return for Palestinians is invalidated because in 1948 and afterwards hundreds of thousands of Jews moved or were expelled from Arab countries and settled in Israel". (p.13) This is what is meant by the "demographic exchange" or exchange of population; the Palestinian refugees in exchange of the Arab Jews.

The booklet continues to confirm:

1. That the Arab Jews did not establish a political movement to claim their rights of return and property in the Arab countries.

2. That "Israel has never fought for Jews to remain in their homeland; rather it has consistently campaigned to bring them to Israel."

The authors should have taken this analysis to a higher level to confirm that the Arab Jews do not constitute a political movement for right of return and property for one main reason: they did not leave their original homes for social, political, or economic reasons but they left as part of the Zionist colonization of Palestine: to form the human element in the Zionist settlements in Occupied Palestine. Accordingly, they have no legitimate demands against the societies and countries they departed from. Contrary to that, the authors state that these immigrants have rights to properties and claims that arise to the same level and priority as the claims of the Palestinian refugees and proceed to ask that "supporters of international law and refugee rights must uphold all Jewish claims to exercise these rights as much as they do for Palestinians or any other set of refugees". (p.14)

The authors admit that no movement has been organized with these demands and Israel/Zionism are not interested in allowing Arab Jews to return to the countries of their origins. If that is the case, then one would wonder why do the authors take the task of supporting those claims. Is this being done for tactical reasons or is it, perhaps, to confirm how 'just, humane and civilized' we are?

The larger question is: Do Jews and Zionists need more support in the pursuit of their claims in addition to their control of the world's media and financial resources and the exploitation of the victims of the Holocaust[7]?

The authors' position coincides with the Zionists' attempts to organize a chain of claims against Swiss Banks (for 'theft of money and gold' of European Jews) and European and American companies (exploitation of Jewish workers before and during WWII) and, of course, the ongoing Holocaust campaign. It is no secret that this is done to gain more support and compensations to serve the aims of the Zionist organizations. One then wonders whether it is the task of Arab-Americans to support this effort. Isn't it the responsibility of the White Europeans who committed those crimes and the capitalist regimes that gave birth to Nazism, Fascism and Zionism? Why don't we let the White Europeans and their regimes take responsibility for their acts and bear the burden of their racist history (not only toward the Holocaust and the persecution of Jews, but also against the Slavs, Gypsies, Africans, and many other nations before, during and after WWII)?

More Catholic than the Pope

The authors' position on the Jewish claims against Arab countries, is, in fact, a reminder of some Arab intellectuals and academicians and their position on the Holocaust that is frequently unscientific and one of exaggerated sympathy. It is positions like these, that lead to 'artificial battles'.

While some might find this debate a diversion or distraction from the main topic of this article, there are, however, great lessons to be learned.

Regardless of the credibility of the Holocaust, the number of its victims, and the numerous questions surrounding it, and regardless of other related issues (White European persecution of Jews, the confiscation of their assets, and discrimination against them), this set of questions remains the sole responsibility of White European racism. One should remember that Nazism was one of its schools and historical phases. Accordingly, the full responsibility (ethical, philosophical, political and historical) falls on the White European societies and regimes. That is not to say that we, as Arabs, and the whole humanity, are not concerned with the persecution, sufferings, and annihilation of any human group, whether they are Jews, Armenians, Native Indians in US, Indigenous peoples in Chiapas and Guatemala or hundreds of thousands of Africans in Rwanda.

What we are simply saying is:

1. The Holocaust and Jewish claims against European and Arab countries have received enough attention, definitely more than any other persecution or massacre in the human history.

2. There are many questions surrounding the Holocaust that are not resolved yet and should be, at least for the present time and for the purposes of this paper, left for the experts.

3. The Zionists and their supporters have the expertise and the resources to defend their claims and they do not need any further support.

4. The Holocaust and the financial compensation for its victims had been exploited by the Zionist organizations to serve their political goals.

5. Let the White Europeans bear full responsibility for their own acts and the heavy burden of their racist history.

Therefore, the authors have placed themselves, needlessly, in a position to defend questionable Jewish claims against Arab countries, although they admit that there has been no organized Israeli or Zionist movement to defend those claims. Modern history teaches us that Zionists will pursue every claim they have or can potentially have. This is not a prejudiced generalization as much as it is a reading of the history, particularly the history of Europe, including the Holocaust, the relationship between Zionism and Nazism, and the various Zionist claims. Furthermore, experts tell us that the list of Zionist claims is not over yet.

The main point here is that these Arab Jews had chosen between Zionism on one hand and the original homeland and the nation that embraced them for centuries. No political movement has been organized to stand and defend their claims. Do the authors or the ADC wish to take over this task?

The other closely related and equally important issue is to understand why the Zionist movement did not (and logically will not) support the claims of the Arab Jews against Arab countries. The reason is very clear and self-evident: the return of Arab Jews to their original homes (Arab countries) will, de facto and de jure, destroy the very foundation and the legitimacy of the Zionist project in Palestine and will, ideologically and practically, mean its demise. If the Arab countries were to invite Arab Jews to return to these countries with full recovery of their properties, would Arab Jews accept the offer? The Zionist movement will not allow this to happen and, needless to say, will fight it vigorously.

It is, therefore, moral and prudent to state in summary:

1. The Arab Jews have the right to return to their countries of origin and Arab countries should accept their return. This is in harmony with principles of human rights and international law. However, the Palestinians have also the same right of return to their homes of origin in Occupied Palestine.

2. The Jewish claims against Arab countries for compensation for properties are not legitimate as discussed above. On the other hand, compensation for the Palestinians in place of their right of return is a charity and surrender of that right. It is also betrayal and flagrant violation of the principles of human rights and international law.

3. Our position should be to insist on the 'return of Arab Jews' vs. 'the Palestinian right of return'. This is the rationale of the struggle for the destruction of the Zionist- settler- racist project in Palestine.

Implementation of the Right of Return and Methods of Compensation

Concerning the methods for implementing these rights, the authors propose that Palestinians and Israelis conduct negotiations and arrive at procedures and methods to achieve that. "Perhaps", the authors argue, "many Palestinians would likely accept compensation for the simple reason that the homes and villages they may wish to return to not longer exist". (p.15) The authors also confirm that modalities for the administration of a return program "could include limits on the number of [Palestinian] refugees returning each year although not a cap on the total number who would have the right to return, among many other administrative options. However, fundamental elements of a just settlement must include full recognition of the right of return, a real choice for refugees between return and adequate compensation and restitution, and modalities to ensure that return occurs at a rate that refugees can be absorbed into Israel with priority given to those refugees most in need of return". (p. 15)

The issues that require special attention are two:

1. the absorption of refugees and

2. the return of refugees to homes that have been destroyed and to towns and villages that are no longer present on the map.

Absorption of Palestinian Refugees inside Israel

What do the authors mean by absorption? Do they mean demographic or geographic absorption, or assimilation within the "pure Jewish State? Do they mean "melting" in the Israeli society?

No matter how diverse and different the interpretations of these terms can be, this issue requires extreme caution. The Arab Palestinians have consistently refused, and continue to, all attempts of absorption, assimilation or melting of their Arab national identity in the Zionist state-Israel.[8]

Why are the authors concerned about ensuring the absorption of the returning Palestinians inside Israel? Why do they assume that the only option the Palestinian refugees have, upon their return, is to become Israeli citizens? In other words, why is it that the only option these Palestinians have is to live within the "Israeli state"? Shouldn't there be a struggle and demand for a state without Zionism or Jewish racism (pure Jewish state) where Arabs and Jews can coexist in democracy, social justice, and equality of rights and responsibilities?

Without going into lengthy details of this complex issue that requires an independent study, the question is: why do the authors assume that the only available solution for the returning Palestinian refugees is absorption within a racist-colonial-state that is founded on racial discrimination between the Jews and "all the others"? On the other hand, there is no indication that the Zionist movement (ideology and practices), its state entity-Israel, or the Israeli civil institutions would accept the Palestinian Arabs (or others) as citizens equal to the Jews. With the exception of tiny groups of the Israeli leftists, there are no social or political forces in the Zionist state that struggle for putting an end to the racist, theological nature of the Israeli state or for building a society where all people are treated equally regardless of ethnic or religious origin. In fact, the Zionist-Israeli history is abundant with hostility against Arabs, claiming and imposing superiority over them, and all sorts of racial discrimination against them. The Zionism and Zionist state- Israel have a clear ideology, vision, and mission in building a pure Jewish state where there is no room for "non-Jews". Therefore, it is needless to say that this Zionist plan does not constitute a solution for the problem of Palestinian refugees nor for the Arab-Zionist conflict. Avoiding or attempting to escape from the genuine affirmation of the Arab national identify of the Palestinian refugees will lead us to the extermination of the right of return, to the surrender of the refugees' rights, and to further deepening of the conflict.

These are tangible facts, time has come to understand and face them. The Zionists do not conceal their identity or their objectives. They do not spare any effort in making their position clear, unashamedly to the entire world. The clarity of the Zionist position (ideology and practice) has been consistent and non-yielding since the writing of the The Jewish State by Theodor Herzel (1896). For the Arabs and Palestinians this is a time for awakening. It is about time we stop throwing sand in our eyes and rid ourselves of wishful thinking and illusions about solutions of compromise with the Zionists, solutions that they themselves ridicule and refuse categorically.

The right of return, preserving the rights of the Palestinian refugees, and the struggle for their implementation can only be accomplished within the following framework:

1. The affirmation of the Arab national identity of the Arab Palestinian refugees firmly, clearly, and without intimidation. This is precisely what the Palestinian refugees demand.

2. The struggle for the Palestinian right of return is a component and should take place within the context of the Palestinian-Arab struggle against the imperialist- Zionist plan and its tool - 'Israel'. This means that the struggle for the return of the refugees to their homes is, as it should be, a contribution to the national pan-Arabic (qawmi) struggle against the imperialist-Zionist plan. The Palestinian Arab refugees should be one of the major and potential forces in the liberation of the occupied Arab land. This struggle is also a struggle against the Zionist hegemony over Arab land, water, economic and natural resources, and against the Zionist monopoly of industrial, civil and military institutions that constitute the basic elements of the formation and the survival of the Israeli state.

The Return to the Destroyed Homes

The authors state "It is likely that hundreds of thousands might well choose to return, especially Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, but some perhaps many, Palestinians would likely accept compensation for the simple reason that the homes and villages they may wish to return to no longer exist". (p.13)

It is true that the Zionist terrorist groups, during the War of Palestine in 1948 and in the few months that followed destroyed more than 500 Arab villages and towns. This, without any doubt, represents the most tragic consequence of the Palestinian Nakba- catastrophe of 1948. The destruction of these villages and towns should not be misused to justify or forgive the Zionist enemy or absolve them of their responsibilities. However, the question is: why do the authors assume that, since those homes have been destroyed, then the Palestinian refugees are left only with one choice: compensation? According to the authors' logic, the choice is between return and compensation.

If the authors are indeed supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees and their legitimacy, why is it that they do not demand the Zionists and the imperialist-capitalist center to rebuild homes for the refugees and bear the financial cost of that? One would think that this should be the minimum expectation from the Zionists in taking responsibility and asking for forgiveness for the massacres and crimes, they committed against the Arab Palestinians. If the Zionist settlers destroyed Palestinian homes to build theirs, why is it that Palestinian refugees do not have the right to make a free choice of the place they want to live, the village or town they want to live in, and demand that the Zionists rebuild these homes?

What we are, clearly, asking for here is well founded and based on historical facts. The Zionist enemy should rebuild the homes that the Zionist terrorist groups (Haganah, Irgun, Stern, and Palmach...that constituted what is known today as Israeli Defense Army) destroyed in the War of Palestine in 1948 and thereafter, so that their original and legitimate owners can return and live in them. There is nothing strange or unusual about this demand. It is in absolute harmony with the principles of human rights and international law. There are many examples in modern history where governments and countries took full responsibility for their acts and crimes and bore the financial cost of compensating for them, or where the 'international community' and its institutions built residential units for the refugees. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Zionist movement, since the 1880's, had financed and built settlements and residential units for hundreds of thousands of Zionist settlers in Occupied Palestine. The United States of America and other European countries have contributed billions of dollars to cover the cost of these projects, in addition to contributing and donating millions of dollars to build roads and facilities that are necessary for 'decent', and even 'luxurious' living for those settlers and occupiers.

The Palestinian refugees are the original owners of these homes and the victims of expulsion and life in refugee camps under the most difficult conditions for over fifty-three years. Why is it, then, that we do not demand building homes for those refugees who express their desire to return?

Is it perhaps because the authors and other politicians and intellectuals, truly believe that the problem of Palestinian refugees is one of charity, and therefore, the solution is in accepting whatever 'good will' and 'donations' the Zionists, United States, and their obedient apparatus, the so-called 'international institutions', decide to offer.

The Palestinians have adhered firmly to their right of return and struggled for it for more than fifty-three years. Our position should be, therefore, based on the following:

1. The Zionist entity should accept and declare full recognition and acknowledgment for its responsibilities (ethical, historical, political and material) towards the Palestinian Nakba and the expulsion of the Palestinian refugees.

2. The Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes and the Zionist state of Israel must bear full responsibility for the cost of rebuilding homes that the Zionist terrorist groups destroyed in 1948 and after. This responsibility is not an act of charity, it is an obligation that is based on the principles of international law and human rights (the same rights the authors defend), and it is based on the experience of other nations in modern history.

The Return of Refugees and the Acceptance of Occupation

Another Zionist argument that the authors debate in this booklet claims "Israel could not possibly allow hostile and hateful Palestinian refugees to return, since this would place the state and its Jewish citizens in peril." (p. 15) The authors continue, "Behind this argument is the assumption that Palestinian feelings toward Israel arise from an immutable and innate hatred, and not from a sense of deep injustice that could possibly be redressed. It ignores the point that Resolution 194 requires returning refugees who wish to live in peace with other neighbors. De jure and de facto, return for Palestinians means being willing to live as Arabs in an established internationally recognized Israeli state. The very act of return under such circumstances is in itself a demonstration of reconciliation and acceptance". (p.16) Note how reconciliation is accomplished by the willingness and concessions of only one party (the Palestinians) while the other party (Zionists) refuse to bear any responsibility towards the Palestinian Nakba. It is also noteworthy that the authors do not apply on these issues the same basic principles (ethical, legal and political) that they have used as a foundation for their position through this booklet. The authors also state that: "Many Israelis recognize that, despite second-class status, political and economic exclusion, and Israel's conflict with their brethren, Palestinian citizens [the Arabs of 1948 Occupied Palestine-M.A.] have been loyal and productive citizens".

The authors continue to inquire, with optimism, "How much more constructive would their role be [the Arabs of 1948 Occupied Palestine-M.A.] if their countrymen and women in exile were accorded the same Right to Return that Israel gives to Jews anywhere in the world?" (p. 16) In their response to this argument: the safety and protection of Jews and the Jewish state from the 'hostile and hate-filled' Palestinians, the authors confirm that the Palestinian refugees are peace-loving and want to live in peace with their neighbors in Israel and will be good, loyal, and productive citizens in the state of Israel. It is unfortunate that the authors missed a true opportunity to respond to these racist Zionist claims that propose that the stability and security of the Jews can only be secured if the Jews were to live by themselves in a 'pure Jewish state'. In such a state There is no place for non-Jews and the state and society institutions are dominated and operated according to the religious teachings of Judaism and the theory of the unique and superior genus. The history of the past century teaches us that the Zionists hide behind this argument (fear from hostile Palestinians) to justify their racism and resolve to live in a state and environment that is purely Jewish and not 'contaminated' by Arabs or others.

Additionally, the booklet avoids the central question: if the Arab Palestinians were indeed hostile and charged with hatred against Jews, is the reason for this hate a genetic, ethnic or biological characteristic of the Palestinians, or is it the result of the Zionist occupation of their homeland, the continuous genocide of their people, and the total destruction of Palestinian society and its institutions?

The other question is: how did the Arab Jews live with the Arabs for many centuries (and continue to) in Arab countries (in the Islamic Arab state and in Andalusia) many centuries before the Zionist movement was created at the end of the 19th century?

Zionism, in fact, had to distort the reality and falsify the facts of history for the purpose of "marketing" its colonial-settler goals: the occupation of Palestine and the creation of a Zionist state as a base for the imperialist-capitalist hegemony over the Arab homeland and as an effective tool of its destruction. This reminds us of how Zionists had, heavily and systematically, utilized anti-Semitism in the second half of the 19th century and continue to do so. It is at this juncture, that the authors had the opportunity to respond to these racist Zionist claims instead of presenting the Palestinian refugees as 'beggars' who are anxious to express their gratitude to the 'donors' for their charity and generosity. The authors certainly project the image of Palestinian refugees, who spent the years of expulsion suffering in exile, dreaming and longing that they would one day return to their homeland, as refugees who are eager to return just to be 'the loyal and productive citizens' in building the Zionist state of Israel.

To illustrate the distortion and misrepresentation of the aspirations of the Palestinian refugees, let us summarize the characteristics that the authors have attached to the Palestinian people:

1. The Palestinian refugees desire to live in peace with their neighbors (i.e. with the occupiers of their homeland).

2. The acceptance of the Palestinian refugees to return means that they desire to live "as Arabs in an Israeli state that is established and internationally recognized".

3. The mere act of return is in itself a demonstration of reconciliation and acceptance.

4. The Palestinian Arabs of the occupied Palestine in 1948 are loyal, productive and constructive citizens in the Zionist society.

In our view, these conclusions are manufactured by the authors' imagination. They are also the product of the sense of superiority that characterizes some of the Arab intellectuals and political activists, particularly those who reside in the West isolated from the interest of the Arab-Palestinian masses, their sentiment, interests, and national aspirations. Ultimately these opinions are formed remotely in the comfort of distance and without a price to pay. Additionally, these statements are full of antagonistic contradictions that undermine the fundamentals of the Palestinian and Arab struggle. The point is: where did the authors gather these data and information? Based on what do they create the impression that this is an objective assessment of the opinions and positions of the Palestinian refugees or the Arabs of 1948 Occupied Palestine? Where do these assumptions come from? In other words, are there any objective scientific data, or even a field survey of the refugees' public opinion to support such conclusions?

Nazism and Communist Regimes: A Vulgar and Unnecessary Symmetry

The authors explain the US position on the right of return and compensation for the properties of the European Jews and others, and they emphasize an important aspect of it: how the US "has entirely rejected the idea that the rights of refugees and property owners diminish with time".

In the course of this explanation, the authors state, in a rather casual manner, how the "Nazi and Communist regimes" confiscated the property of the European Jews and others. (p. 9) Nazism and Communist regimes, one would get the impression, were placed, and perhaps unintentionally, at the same level in the confiscation of the properties of European Jews.

This statement is truly astonishing. First, there is no need to mention this issue at all in the subject of the booklet. If the authors were to leave it out entirely, it would not have diminished the value of their research. Second, mentioning the Nazi and the Communist regimes in such a context and symmetry will not provide additional support to their point of view. Briefly, it suffices to say that this statement and in this context, is a denial of historical facts relying, probably, on claims made by imperialists and their intellectuals in the aftermath of WWII and during the Cold War era.

However, the question remains: what is to be gained from debating this point? Is it, perhaps, an attempt to assimilate and offer a position that is in harmony with the imperialist west, its ideology, and culture? Or is it an attempt of self-elevation in the hope of 'getting closer to the western public opinion' or to the 'heart of the western capitalist white elite'? The fact is that the West did not and will not accept Arabs and Arab intellectuals, including the Westernized ones, and will not place them at an equal level with their peers, the western intellectuals. Is it, perhaps, the authors' certificate of 'opposing Communism' and desire to affirm their 'purity'?

Although no one claims to know the answers to these questions, they remain, however, important and inevitable.

Few additional comments before we depart from the issue of Nazi and the Communist regimes.

1. The imperialist west would not have survived and continued its 'prosperity' today (priding itself in cursing Communism) if Communism, its masses, its political parties and its ideology did not fight the most courageous resistance battles against Nazism and Hitler in WWII.

2. The authors assume that the European Jews with origins from former Communist countries have legitimate rights and deserve compensation for properties that were nationalized (not confiscated as the others stated). This assumption might indicate that there is a Jewish nationality and that Jews, wherever they reside, do not belong to those countries or societies, but to the state of Israel. In other words Jews, living in European or other societies, constitute (or constituted) an 'independent national minority' that, as such, enjoys a different set of rights than the 'natives. This assumption is, therefore, used further to explain and justify why European Jews are entitled to compensation for their properties by former Communist regimes/countries. The trap here, and probably unintentional, is that this may also mean that the Palestinian right of return is not legitimate because Occupied Palestine, based on these assumptions, is the 'Jewish national homeland'.

3. The properties and assets that are the subject of this discussion is part of the property of peoples of former socialist countries that were nationalized and placed in the service of society and in building socialism. Whether we stand to support or oppose socialism, is a different matter and should not be confused with the issue of the property of the European Jews in former socialist countries. These properties were an integral part of the property of those nations and there is no rationale for compensating only the Jews as if they were solely isolated and targeted in the process of nationalization and building socialism in those countries. In the final analysis, this matter remains subject to the facts of history. The only stubborn question remains: why are we discussing the property of the Hungarian Jews, for example, and not the property of all the people of Hungary? Why would European Jews be entitled for compensation while the rest of the population in the former Communist countries would not?

Eli Weisel: Zionist and Advocate of Kosovo Refugees

In their explanation of the US position regarding the Palestinian refugees, the authors cited the report submitted by Eli Wiesel to former U.S. President Clinton about the conditions of the Kosovo refugees. Eli Wiesel is described as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and an advocate for the war is Kosovo. The authors explain the hypocrisy of the US position on the rights of refugees. As mentioned previously, they criticized Wiesel's attempts to relieve the Zionists from their responsibilities toward the Palestinian catastrophe and the problem of Palestinian refugees. However, the role of Eli Weisel requires additional discussion to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

It was necessary and would have also been insightful that the authors, as they cited Wiesel and his stand in the advocacy of the Kosovo refugees, point to the hypocrisy and the contradiction in his position. They should have mentioned that Wiesel is the very same Zionist who closes his eyes to the endless suffering of the Palestinian people and to the crimes and massacres that Zionists committed in Palestine. He is, also, the same man who led the campaign for exploiting the Holocaust and its victims and collecting huge financial support to be ultimately used in serving the Zionist organizations and their activities. (For more details about this issue, refer to the above-mentioned Finkelstein's book). It would have been insightful to mention these facts, not only for the sake of completeness but also to focus on the fact that the former US president had chosen this Zionist and delegated him for this particular task (the advocacy of the Kosovo refugees), in an attempt to camouflage the true US position: a position that claims concern and advocacy for the Kosovo refugees while it stands deaf to the suffering of the Palestinian refugees for fifty three years, a position that is totally biased and supportive to Zionism and the Zionist state that have caused this suffering. In other words, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the choice of this man was a deliberate attempt to 'affirm' the US position (the advocate and the defender of the rights of the Kosovo refugees) which, at the same time, blindly supports the most racist and aggressive state in modern history of mankind.

Charity or Surrender?

The authors stated, "If we were ever to resolve this conflict, we must reject the line of argument that the refugees are 'an obstacle to peace' who, with their stubborn demands for their rights, are spoilers at everyone else's party. The essence of peace is minimal justice and the essence of justice for the Palestinians is justice for the refugees. Israeli concerns and questions about the right of return are understandable and must be addressed, but Israel's absolute rejection of the rights of refugees cannot be the final word". (p.19)

Let's read again:

1. "The essence of peace is minimal justice". Is there a minimal justice? How could justice be minimal? Is minimal justice really justice? Why does justice have to be minimal? How could minimal justice be achieved?

2. Israel and the Zionists have made their position on the Palestinian refugees and their rights clear: it is to be sought 'outside Israel' and they do not accept any responsibility towards those refugees and the solution of their problem. The question is, therefore, what are those 'Israeli concerns and questions about the right of return' that are understandable and must be addressed and what would be the purpose of addressing them?

3. "If we were ever to resolve this conflict, we must reject the line of argument that the refugees are 'an obstacle to peace' the author emphasized. The authors affirmed, in several occasions, that the rights of Palestinian refugees are individual, political, and national rights. Objectively, however, these rights, void of their historic, political and national content as we have explained in this article, will be, de facto, reduced to basic human rights that can be implemented by charitable means.

The struggle for the protection and implementation of the rights of Palestinian refugees will be, in this scenario, conducted through the application of international law, the resolutions of the United Nations, which fall entirely within the US imperialist hegemony. There is nothing in these resolutions that is adequate to express the aspirations and the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation. The Arab-Palestinians have been through this path before. As a matter of fact, the rise of the contemporary Palestinian National Liberation Movement in the late fifties and mid sixties of the last century, as well as the numerous rebellions against Zionism and Jewish immigration that stormed Palestine for decades before and after the creation of the Zionist state (1948), speak for the disastrous failure of these policies and for the resolve of the Palestinians and Arabs in their struggle against Zionism, and its entity, the Zionist state of Israel, and against the imperialist-Zionist plan for the submission and destruction of the Arab homeland.

Conclusion

The ADC booklet has attempted to shed the light on the Palestinian right of return and the rights of Palestinian refugees, and rejuvenated the debate about this crucial issue at a time many forces have collaborated for its liquidation. It also attempted to respond to Zionist arguments against these rights. In that sense, the booklet is an educational service for the media and public opinion. It is neither logical nor feasible to expect a booklet to cover all the aspects of the Palestinian dilemma and the rights of Palestinian refugees, a topic that requires encyclopedic work.

It is in this context, that we provided this critique to deepen the dialogue about some aspects of the Palestinian right of return and the problem of Palestinian refugees. The booklet ignored some of these aspects while overlooking and suppressing others. Some of them, however, were a true expression of authors' opinion.

Perhaps, in some statements, the authors' intended to 'capture the western audience', or address the 'western mind' with a 'moderate' political discourse that will truly lead to the 'modification' and reduction of the rights and aspirations of our people. We must be, however, careful at all times. This approach will ultimately deplete the right of return and renders it void of any tangible, legal, or national content. Thus, the ADC booklet has coined its own definition and concept of 'a Palestinian right of return and rights of the Palestinian refugees', one that intersects, to a great extent, with the Zionist position on those rights and a position that became more clear through and after the Oslo Agreement and the so-called 'peaceful settlement' of the Arab-Zionist conflict. If the struggle for the Palestinian right of return, were to continue without taking in consideration these precautions, and if the demand for the rights of refugees were to be void of its practical, legal and national (Palestinian and Arabic- qawmi) content, then history will remember that we did not serve the Palestinian cause or the rights of the Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, we might become an instrument in the conspiracy for the liquidation of these rights. If we do not face the facts and roots of the political reality with courage and honesty, and if we stubbornly ignore an entire century of experience and its many lessons, then history will remember us as a people who have wasted its cause and the sacrifices of its masses without achieving victory: a people without history.

FOOTNOTES

1. Examples of these organizations are Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation (CPRR), Palestinian Right to Return Coalition (Al-Awda), and the ADC Right of Return Taskforce. As a result of the work of these organizations and others, the Arab-Palestinian activism in North America was revived, a phenomenon not seen since the US/NATO imperialist aggressive war against the Arab people in Iraq (1991) and the Oslo Agreement (1993).

2. Qutri is an adjective of qutr which is an Arabic term meaning 'a country or a part of a county', a district, or province. For example, an Arab qutr is a country such as Syria or Iraq that as a result of occupation by European colonial powers (Britain and France) became politically and geographically 'independent' and isolated from the collective of Arab countries. At the turn of the twentieth century and as the Ottoman Empire was facing total collapse, Britain and France, the dominant colonial powers at that time, planned and succeeded in dividing and fragmenting the united Arab homeland into the various Arab countries that exist today.
   Qutri, in the modern Arab political discourse, implies the political thought of those who believe in and support the existing fragmentation of Arab homeland into divided states.

3. Qawmi, on the other hand, is an adjective of qawm referring, in the modern Arab political discourse, to the Arab nation (al-umma) and nationalism (al-qawmiya). Nationalist Arab parties and individuals who believe and struggle for a united Arab homeland use the term qawmi in the Arab political thought. Those forces are, therefore, the opposite of qutri forces, Arab political parties, regimes, and individuals who are against Arab unity.

4. It is important to understand the reasons of these positions among the Arab-Americans or American-Arabs and their organization in North America and in the West in general. There are, at least, three possible reasons:

   1. These positions express the interests (financial, professional, academic…etc) of those individuals and groups.

   2. Many of those individuals and groups are fundamentally opposed to Arab nationalism and Arab unity. As a result, they ultimately stand in the opposite camp against the interests of the Arab nation and Arab masses This notion is the crux of their political positions.

   3. The inferiority and intimidation of many of those groups and individuals by the West with all what it represents of culture, euro-centrism, power, technology and other psychological and social influences.

5. It was important that the authors mention these facts not only for the purpose of historical accuracy, but also for clarity and providing a comprehensive view. Abbas Shiblak in his work about the Iraqi Jews mentions that many of those Jews were victims of the Zionist terror and states that many Iraqi Jews left as a result. See Abbas Shiblak, The Lure of Zion (Al Saqi Publishing, London, 1986)

6. It is noteworthy to mention that the majority of the Arab Jews have arrived from Iraq and Morocco. Many Arab countries, including Morocco and Tunisia, opened the door for the Arab Jews to return, if they wish to do so. Additionally, many of the Arab Jews, after they had settled in their Zionist colonies in occupied Palestine, returned to their countries of origin (Arab countries) to visit their families, but decided not to remain there and returned to continue living in Israel. These Zionist invaders-settlers never demanded the right to return to original Arab countries from which they immigrated.

7. See Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of the Jewish Suffering (Verso Books, July 2000)

8. Terms used by authors such as the 'Arabs of Israel' or 'Palestinian citizens of Israel' (p. 17) are not accepted by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Arabs and are reflective of the authors' opinion and political stand. These terms misrepresent and conceal the national identity of the Arabs who remained in Palestine after its occupation in 1948. They do not reflect the true aspirations and political struggle of Arab Palestinians of 1948, a position they firmly expressed and defended for more than half a century.

FAV Home Page - > Please click on the logo above, and we'll FAV you there :)