Palestinian Refugees have every right to return by Al-Awda Organization

Can the words of one man revoke the legal and moral rights of millions of Palestinian refugees?Sari Nusseibeh, the Palestinian Authority's recently designated Jerusalem envoy, became a celebrity in the media trying to do just that. On October 16, he suggested that Palestinians give up their right to return to their homes of origin and instead all be resettled in the West Bank and Gaza. He also advocated a two-state solution, which recognizes a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and a Jewish state, Israel, but to which refugees would be denied return.

A major problem with these positions is that they are inconsistent with international law. The proposal advocates two ethno-national-religious states constructed on systematic state-sanctioned discrimination. The formula discriminates against individual Palestinian refugees living in exile and those who are Israeli citizens by denying them their inalienable rights to return and restitution of their property, while encouraging Jewish immigration and settlement on land belonging to the refugees. It also discriminates against all "non-Jewish" citizens and residents who are excluded by virtue of Israel's definition of itself as a "Jewish state."

Several human rights groups, including ours, have therefore called on Arafat to dismiss Nusseibeh as Jerusalem envoy.
Before, during and after the establishment of the state of Israel, almost 800,000 Palestinians became refugees by a process of ethnic cleansing.
These facts are documented by Palestinian and international historians, and most recently by Israelis also who based their accounts on declassified Israeli government documents. Israel also instituted laws to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes of origin despite UN resolutions to the contrary. These Palestinians and their descendants are the largest and most persistent refugee population in the world, with more than 3.7 million registered with the UN and countless others sometimes living within short distance of their homes and lands of origin. A quarter of Israel's 1.3 million Palestinian citizens are internally displaced refugees.

Considered by the Israeli legal system as "present absentees," their homes, lands and other property have been confiscated illegally, according to international law. The international community, which recommended the partition of Palestine in 1947, felt a deep sense of responsibility for the refugees. For example, the UN mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, stated "It would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine" (UN Doc Al 648, 1948).
Count Folke Bernadotte was subsequently assassinated by an Israeli terrorist death squad.
The right to return has a solid foundation in international law. It is upheld in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, numerous conventions including The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, and UN resolutions including resolution 194 which Israel accepted as precondition for UN membership but has since refused to implement. International law clearly demands that neither occupation nor sovereignty diminish the rights of private ownership.

The right of Palestinian refugees to return is not only legal. It is possible. The notion that Israelis would have to be displaced to allow for the refugees' return is a myth. Demographic studies show that about 78% of Israeli Jews live in 14% of Israel. About 20% live in a few Palestinian cities and the remaining 2% live on 86% of the land which belongs to the refugees. In contrast, 5,000 Palestinian refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip while their own land, beyond the barbed wire, is practically empty.

Proposals that are strikingly similar to South Africa's apartheid system, and the highly exaggerated threat to the "Jewish character" of Israel are not acceptable reasons for denying the refugees their basic rights. The US government should actively support these rights as it did for Balkan refugees in Annex 7 of the Dayton accords. Indeed, the US government should cut its huge annual military and economic assistance to Israel. This aid is contrary to Section 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act which state that "no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." Denying the refugees their right to return is one example of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights Israel has engaged in. Any plan for a lasting and just peace must recognize the inalienable right of Palestinian refugees to return.