PRESIDENT Mahmoud Abbas has laid down Palestinian red lines ahead of next week’s negotiations with Israeli prime minister Binya- min Netanyahu.
“If [the Israelis] demand concessions on the rights of the refugees or the 1967 borders, I will quit,” Mr Abbas said.
“With regards to the borders, we have to agree on the 1967 borders and draw them. If we agree on the borders, that means we have found a solution to the issues of Jerusalem, water and settle- ments. This will leave us with the issue of refugees, which will be dealt with during the second phase [of the talks].”
Although he glossed over huge difficulties the sides face with fixing borders, dealing with Israeli settlements and Jerusalem and sharing water, it is significant that he postponed the refugee issue until the second phase.
On the practical level former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says the two sides have long agreed that most of the five to six million refugees from areas within Israel would settle in the future Palestinian state or in diaspora countries. Therefore, Israel’s Jewish majority is not threatened by a mass “return” of refugees who fled during Israel’s 1948 war of establishment.
Palestinian academic Ahmad Khalidi, whose family is originally from Jerusalem, agrees that the sides can agree on a formula for implementing refugee “return” that “will not upset Israel’s basic concerns”. This would include limitations on those choosing “return” to Israel as well as alternatives such as compensation for lost property and a Palestinian state passport. However, he points out that the refugee problem also involves what Mr Abbas termed “their rights”.
Palestinians demand that Israel must accept the refugees’ “right of return” based on UN General Assembly resolution 194, paragraph 11 of December 11th, 1948, which 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”. During 1948, more than half of the native Arab population of Palestine was expelled or fled from the 78 per cent of the country conquered by Israel. Most settled in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
While the “earliest practicable date” has never come for the 1948 refugees and most recognise that their homes and villages no longer exist, they insist Israel must recognise their “right of return” in principle. But this, states Dr Khalidi, undermines “the moral foundation of Israel” and places on Israel the “responsibility for evicting [the refugees] in the first place. This is [an issue] far more profound than the actual mechanics of working out a settlement”. Palestinians are not alone in demanding moral satisfaction.
London-based Dr Khalidi, who has served as a negotiations adviser to Palestinian teams, notes that Israel seeks Arab recognition “as a Jewish state”. This, he holds, would confer “legitimacy on Israel” and “absolve it of the original sin” of uprooting Palestinians.
“It is important for the West to understand the Palestinian objection to recognition of Israel as a Jewish state,” he said. “This would mean that from 1917 [when Britain pledged to promote the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine] the Palestinian struggle has been illegitimate.”
Given the explosive spiritual dimension of the refugee issue for both sides, it is little wonder Mr Abbas seeks to relegate it to the second phase of negotiations.
Since the PLO and Israel signed the Oslo accord in 1993, the peace process has focused on Palestinians living in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Refugees living in the region and outside have been ignored.
