UNGA 194 and the Denied Right to Resettlement and Compensation

Get into a discussion with an anti-Israel advocate about UN General Assembly Resolution 194, and invariably will come "proof" there is a legal "right to return" for Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948 and the millions of their descendants.  It makes me wonder how much these advocates actually know about history, or the lengths some will go to forget.

Setting aside the obvious, that UNGA resolutions are soft law and not legally binding, and the conditional nature of the Resolution's text, it's interesting to delve deeper to see how implementation was understood at the time by the Conciliation Commission it established.  This helps to show context and that little has changed.

Of course, the part of UNGA 194 always cited to emblazon the "right of return" is from Paragraph 11:

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 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;

However, the second clause of Paragraph 11 instructs the Conciliation Commission "to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation...."

The Commission's first goal was to complete formation of the Refugee Office.  Once done in mid-1951, it started a new mediation effort to assist the parties in seeking solution of questions outstanding between them, offering to suggest specific solutions to specific problems for consideration.  The parties agreed and a conference was held in Paris from 13 September to 19 November.

The Commission reported its progress to the Secretary General on 20 November 1951. The Chairman noted from experience that "concentration on one or the other isolated paragraph of the resolution out of context had not helped promote peace." The necessary elements were "only useful if linked together according to an over-all plan."  As an example, the Commission referred to the mandate to facilitate "repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of refugees" that guided its proposals at the conference.

In its words:  "The interrelation of all the aspects of the problem was too obvious to be overlooked."

The proposals recognized that any solution of the refugee question would involve important commitments by Israel, but these required concurrent reasonable assurances from her neighbours as to her national and economic security. The solution proposed by the Commission envisaged the repatriation and integration of some of the refugees in Israel and the resettlement of others in Arab countries.

Discussion of the comprehensive set of proposals was to be preceded by a declaration of peaceful intentions by the parties in the form of a preamble.  The Commission's suggested text read as follows:

In accordance with the obligations of States Members of the United Nations and of signatories to Armistice Agreements, the [parties] solemnly affirm their intention and undertake to settle all differences, present or future, solely by resort to pacific procedures, refraining from any use of force or acts of hostility, with full respect for the right of each party to security and freedom from fear of attack, and by these means to promote the return of peace in Palestine.

The two sides submitted alternative language and there was no agreement.  The Commission found that the Israeli formulation "went beyond the preliminary statement the Commission considered practicable," while the Arab formulation "fell short of the intention as set forth in the preamble."  In spite of extensive discussions, formal and informal, the Arab delegations would not accept the Commission's proposed text.

Some of the relevant proposals affecting the refugees:

That an agreement be reached concerning war damages by mutual cancellation of claims.

That Israel agree to repatriation of a specified number of Arab refugees which can be integrated into the economy and who wish to return and live in peace with their neighbours.

That Israel accept an obligation to pay a global sum as compensation for property abandoned by refugees not repatriated, to be determined by the Commission's Refugee Office.

The wishes of the refugees required coordination with the practical possibilities of any proposed solution because "concrete conditions of repatriation and resettlement would undoubtedly influence the wishes of the refugees, and the expression of these wishes would in turn determine the extent of any repatriation plan."

The Commission acknowledged that the General Assembly operated under an assumption that refugees could without great difficulty return and resume their lives on the intact and unoccupied land and houses they had abandoned in their flight. The Commission was instructed to facilitate such movement, but it did not come to pass because of the well-known deadlock over the question of repatriation.

The Arab States insisted on a solution, at least in principle, of unconditional acceptance by Israel of the right of refugees to be repatriated, before agreeing to discuss other issues. For Israel no solution involving repatriation could occur outside an over-all settlement, nor could the right of return involve a repatriation operation of unknown extent.

The Commission's indicated that its proposals could only be successful if both parties, having the best interests of the refugees in mind, were willing to depart from their original positions in order to make possible practical and realistic arrangements towards the solution of the refugee problem.

Israel offered to accept a portion of the refugees, in full compliance with the resolution, but in context of the other parts of the resolution necessary to solve the questions outstanding and reach a full peace.  Conversely, the Arab solution required unconditional acceptance by Israel of the "right of repatriation" or no further discussion.

Sound familiar? In the meanwhile, to protect a "principle" of conflict, the Arabs leave the refugees to languish and suffer without choice as pawns in a larger conflict, supposedly in their "best interest."  Which response is more consistent with the Commission's words?  I have no problem understanding the difference in these two approaches to peace and promotion of human dignity.

One would think if re-settlement and compensation had been offered to the refugees themselves in 1951 that many thousands would have accepted and integrated into the other Arab societies.  There would not be this intractable issue today.  But Arab leaders chose to let them suffer to further conflict.

To conclude, the idea that Arab leaders are less rigid today is ludicrous, except in a world turned upside down.  Yet why today is there so little mention that Palestinian Arab refugees who want to live in Arab countries have the right to resettle in those countries?  Why are there no protests against these human rights violations by Palestinian and Arab regimes?  Do Palestinian supporters of “return” believe it is fair to make ALL the refugees return?  Is this illustrative of a double standard?

(Tip to EoZ)

"Single Thought" and Victimhood

My last post was based on an article by Wafa Sultan.  She actually lived in the eye of the beast, the Syria of Haffez Assad and experienced what occurs when one refuses to submit.  She tells us what she was taught from the start.  To hate Jews!  So many Leftist activists simply refuse to accept or even acknowledge this reality, and in the process deny a victim whose rights were violated.  Yet they constantly tell me they are the ones that stand for human rights!

It would be nice if the role play might cease for a moment in the Arab-Israeli dialogue.  Perhaps then an answer would come to my question about what motivates a person like Sultan to come forth?  Is she just a Zionist tool or, according to Time Magazine, one whose power, talent or moral example is transforming our world?  In truth, I cannot understand the objection to the argument she offers, particularly from a human rights perspective as I understand it to be.  Indeed, I see her as a proponent of human dignity.

Which brings me to look at another woman, one not of the Middle East, but the Left.  Her name is Pilar Rahola, and she is a Spanish Catalan journalist, writer, and former Member of Parliament, and member of the far Left.

On December 16, 2009 she gave a talk she called, Jews with Six Arms, which raised another set of questions for those activists that call call themselves pro-Palestinian.  Or are they just anti-Israel?

Rahola laments the state of the environment when it comes the Arab-Israeli conflict:

The problem that those of us who do not demonize Israel have, is that there exists no debate on the conflict.

She says we throw slogans, not information, full of prejudices, propaganda and simplification. One cannot sway from universal idea of criticizing Israel without risk to become suspect and unfaithful to the cause.  Why?

To adherents of the anti-Israel Left, she asks:

Why, of all the conflicts in the world, only this one interests them?

Why is a tiny country which struggles to survive criminalized?

Why does manipulated information triumph so easily?

Why are all the people of Israel, reduced to a simple mass of murderous imperialists?

Why is there no Palestinian guilt?

Why is Arafat a hero and Sharon a monster?

Finally, why when Israel is the only country in the World which is threatened with extinction, it is also the only one that nobody considers a victim?

The question about Palestinian guilt is certainly apt considering the aftermath of the Gilat Shalit release in exchange for 1,027.  I commend this blog at CiF Watch for context: Shalit after Hamas captivity vs Palestinian terrorists after Israeli incarceration: A visual/moral contrast.

Rahola's last question is the most critical, however.  Why is Israel not entitled to the same victim status that would most assuredly be accorded if it was not Israel?

As it affects her questions, she understands and articulates effects of antisemitism.

Just as it is impossible to completely explain the historical evil of anti-Semitism, it is also not possible to totally explain the present-day imbecility of anti-Israelism. Both drink from the fountain of intolerance and lies. Also, if we accept that anti-Israelism is the new form of anti-Semitism, we conclude that circumstances may have changed, but the deepest myths, both of the Medieval Christian anti-Semitism and of the modern political anti-Semitism, are still intact. Those myths are part of the chronicle of Israel.

She also raises the matter of Islamic antisemitism that "contaminates more than 1,400 million people, who are educated, massively, in hatred towards the Jew."

The anti-Israel Left remains oblivious to the fundamentalist and supremacist (racist) totalitarian strain within present day Islam that impedes ethical development and violently attacks the forces of Islamic moderation and toleration.

[It] uses the name of God to perpetrate the most terrible horrors: lapidate women, enslave them, use youths as human bombs. [...] If Stalinism destroyed the left, and Nazism destroyed Europe, Islamic fundamentalism is destroying Islam.

Rather, it is too wrapped up in a narrative that seems too narrow and illusory.

That is why, when someone tries to go beyond the “single thought” of criticizing Israel, he becomes suspect and unfaithful, and is immediately segregated.

Rahola shows the nexus between totalitarian movements and Jew hatred, an Orwellian dichotomy that we ignore at our peril.

Nothing seems strange. Jewish culture represents, as no other does, the metaphor of a concept of civilization which suffers today attacks on all flanks. The Jews are the thermometer of the world’s health. Whenever the world has had totalitarian fever, they have suffered. In the Spanish Middle Ages, in Christian persecutions, in Russian pogroms, in European Fascism, in Islamic fundamentalism. Always, the first enemy of totalitarianism has been the Jew. And, in these times of energy dependency and social uncertainty, Israel embodies, in its own flesh, the eternal Jew.

So there you have it.  Israel is embodies the eternal Jew, who remains an object of hate to far too many, grounded in an ugly history of persecution in new clothes, so much so that the community of states and the anti-Israeli activists are incapable of recognizing victim status.

Why?

A Blind Spot of Leftist Activists

I have been watching the Occupy Movement and the antisemitism that has surfaced among some protesters.  It seems to be tolerated and that is not good.  It points to a blind spot of Leftist activists.

The day Israel was reborn in its ancient homeland, Arabs tried to exterminate it and commit a genocide against the Jews.  They have been trying ever since, by war, by terror, and now current methods of delegitimization by “human rights activists” that demonize both Israel and voices for Jewish self-determination.

When Israel is the only country on the planet threatened with extinction, why is not considered a victim?

Many on the Left are simply too loathe to admit that Arab-Muslim societies actively engage in practices they falsely charge against Israel.  It’s like there’s no apartheid, racism, repression or torture in this world, except as committed by Israelis.  They invariably invoke liberal values, but should not liberals first address political ideologies and cultures that are hostile to liberalism?

When the disconnect is shown, charges of Islamophobia and racism often follow in the rush to enable and even embrace Israel’s adversaries.  Attempts by Left-wing activists to silence critics who question their obsession with Israel do not help millions of Arab-Muslims who suffer within discriminatory societies, and the relative silence from these proponents does not help eliminate human rights abuses in the Arab-Muslim world and elsewhere.

One day, perhaps, the activists may realize that even their Western notions are under threat, not to mention the societies they attack, that provide and advance human rights globally, even imperfectly.  It would remove the fog that clouds their vision and muddles their reality. 

Leftist Activists and Palestinian Rectitude

Happened to come across a great post at Harry’s Place today. It helps show, at least in my mind, where the so-called left in the USA is heading. I refer to the “so-called” left because one can rightly question if much of their behavior is liberal. Indeed, the left-right paradigm can often be just a means to oversimplify and label, rather than deal with the substance of issues and actions.

Cross-posted was a short essay entitled, “More Palestinian than the Palestinians?” by Professor Alan Johnson, Director and Senior Research Fellow at the Britain Israel Research and Communications Centre. A member of Labour Friends of Israel, he was writing in a personal capacity.

Johnson sets the stage by positioning two sides, as set forth by Ernest Bevin, the British Foreign Secretary, who in 1947 spoke about the Jewish desire for "the creation of a sovereign Jewish state" and the Arab insistence on resisting "to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine."  Bridging the gap is what peace and the two state solution is all about.

For many years, Labour worked with progressives in Israel and Palestine to create confidence building measures essential to a peace agreement. But at the party conference this year Johnson saw signs that many in Labour have forsaken the strategy for something much more dangerous:

becoming a kind of ultra-left Trotskyist external faction of the Palestinian movement; an isle of rectitude, always on the look-out for a "sell-out" by Abbas, always thinking the revolution is around the corner, if only a particular set of demands would be adopted.

He provides illustration:

At a packed Labour Friends of Palestine meeting in Liverpool, Fatah's Husam Zomlot  said that the full, untrammelled right of return for every Palestinian refugee ‘to their homes and farms' was ‘absolutely beyond negotiation.' He was cheered to the rafters.  When he promoted the idea of a reconciliation between Fatah and the fascistic Hamas, and was cheered again.  And when the chair of the meeting, New Statesman political editor Mehdi Hasan, opposed Abbas' UN application as a sell-out of the "9 million or so" (!) Palestinian refug­­ees who have the right of return, he met no challenge.

He makes the main point:

By encouraging Palestinian rejectionism and maximalism, by echoing the obstructionism of the pro-Iran Hamas, by stoking the fantasy of a full untrammelled right of return for every last Palestinian refugee, and by finding no place in its heart for the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination, these activists are more Palestinian than the Palestinians.

Rather than support progressives in both Israel and Palestine, they want to ban and boycott. Seeing only a morality play of innocent victims and cruel oppressors they propose to break links to the Israeli labour federation, the Histadrut (despite the federation's groundbreaking agreement with the Palestinian unions in 2008). By deploying polarising rhetoric these activists harm the ability of either side to move towards the other.

It goes without saying, the approach Johnson prefers is to foster conditions for a two state solution, listen to concerns across the board, and challenge those who seek to delegitimize Israel. He wonders which approach his party will choose.

The same is so for progressive activists in America. Will they choose to support the difficult road to peace and reconciliation based on the call to universal human rights for all, or the simple one with less obstacles where it’s easy and cool to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians? Because it looks like the latter, some among us must speak out.