(Fwd) Return or not - Yehudit Harel on James Bennet on Khalil Shikaki

[Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)]

GUSH SHALOM  pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 www.gush-shalom.org

We thought you should not miss Yehudit Harel's  comments to a newpoll by 
Khalil Shikaki. The subject of the poll: who would actually return. 
In the end you find the James Bennet article about the poll as it 
appeared in the New York Times yesterday.  

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:35:50 +0200
From:           	Yehudith Harel <ye_harel at netvision.net.il>
Subject:        	Fw: About The Right of Return:  James Bennet: Would 
the exiles
	actually return?


Ramat Ha Sharon, 14.7.2003


The need to recognize the Right of Return as the basis for any possible 
compromise

Yehudith Harel

It is very important to have an authoritativepoll on this very sensitive subject of the 
ROR, done by an expert with impeccable professional authority like Khalil Shikaki, the 
findings however are notsurprising. The results presented in this recent poll, reported 
by James Bennet in the IHT and NYT, 'match' with my little private'research' 
resultsbased onaprivate visit to three refugee camps in Jordan in 1996. They match 
with the contents of many discussions I have had since then with other Palestinians, 
refugees living in the West Bank or abroad. 
I went to Jordan in 1996together with a colleague from the Israeli Peace movement in 
order to try to create contacts with Jordanian Peace groups, and we were offered an 
opportunity to be taken into the refugee camps.We were accompanied by a 
PLOofficial who arranged our visit in the camps. We did not say that we were Israelis 
- our host told the people that we were European journalists.We had the privilege and 
the opportunity to visit and talkto people in three camps - Wihdat, Yarmouch and 
Abdoun ( yes, near the millionaires'residence in Amman there's also a refugee camp 
with the same name. ) We talked to about 30 people in the campsandto another group 
of refugees who were living out of the camps in Amman and Irbid. Altogether we 
talked to more or less 40 - 50 people. The majority of the people said that despite of 
their dreams and attachment to Palestine, they do notintend to go back to Israel 
because of many reasons. Among the reasons listed were the factthat their houses and 
villagesexistno moreand that Israelis a racist country where they are not 
welcom,and that they don't wish to become secondclass citizens in a racist society. 
Some said that they realized thattheir return will never be permitted by Israel and they 
want to get their life settled with the help of the compensation.Some older people said 
that they want to get the compensation so that they cansee their children comfortably 
settled in their lifetime.
Nevertheless, everybody - absolutely everybody said that theydemanded a direct and 
straightforward recognition of their right of returnand to be given the right of free 
choice to refuse to return...Theyinsisted that they demand the right to refuse 
repatriation, and would never ever accept to be 'told' byIsrael that they cannot return. 
Such a recognition of their right, being given the right to refuse to return, would give 
back their honor, would prove that they have been wronged.Only after that can 
theyacceptcompensation for their wasted life, for their suffering and misery and the 
loss of their property.When asked about their preferred choice - where would they 
like to settle - only a few said that they are ready tocome back and become 
Israelicitizens and settle wherever itwould be possible for them within the green line. 
The majoritysaid they would like to stay where they are - in Jordan, some said they 
would like to move to the Free Palestinian State or elsewhere. However,the 
unanimous and adamantdemand of recognizing their rights came out so forcefully. It 
was then and there thatI understood what itreally meantfor the Palestinians, and that 
without this recognition there will never ever be anyresolution of the conflict.

Our people here do not understand the psychological and historical importance 
attributed by the Palestinians to the recognition of the Right of Return. There are many 
meanings attached to this recognition, but the most important one is that this recognition 
will re-institute them aslegitimate owners and equal partners in this land and it will 
mean that the compensation they get is their right and not a charity 'granted' to them by 
us because of our 'generosity and good will'. They cannot and will not accept 
compensation as charity on a humanitarian basis. They can and will not allow theirjust 
causeto be reduced to a 'humanitarian case' solved out of generosity by Israel and the 
International community. Only formal recognition of their rights can make the 
difference. It's also a kind of 'settling the account" with the Zionist movement and the 
55 years long abuse of their 'name', the destruction of their society and herritage, the 
abuse of their rights, their suffering,the rewriting of history by us and dominating the 
International discourse in this respect.
Israelis refuseto recognize the ROR exactlybecause they arenot ready to admit that 
we havehistorically wronged the Palestinians.Our peopleare not ready to assume our 
share ofhistorical responsibility for this tragedy. While denying and negating this 
RIGHT and claiming that it does not exist, Israelisare protecting the hegemonic status 
and the self-righteous and self-declared, moral superiority of the Zionist movement over 
the moral and historical rights of the indigenous people of this country. Such an 
approach cannot open the way for reconciliation. To put the matter in veryclear terms: 
The recognition of the ROR by Israel is not about the actual ROR, as it has been 
clearly shown in the Shikaki research, but about settling a historical account between 
the Palestinian and Jewish National Movements... Therefore it is the key to the door of 
reconciliation between the two peoples.

I spent the weekend in Ramallah and had the opportunity to meet another "new 
commer" 48' refugee family. They are first and second generation refugees from Jaffa -
 and PLO staff. The manwas born in Jaffa and was expelled with his familywhen he 
was a little boy. She was born one year after the Nakbaand grew up in Jordan until 
they were expelled in Black September. Then her family moved to Beirut, where she 
becamea student and PLO activist. 
She got married in Beirut and had two small babies when they were expelled again 
withthe PLO in 1982. Her new family was once again uprooted and separated. Her 
husband was sent to Yemen while she left to Cyprus. Later her husband was assigned 
to the Emirates where she joined him with her children. In 1991, after the Gulf war they 
were expelled from the Emirates and her husband was sent back to Tunis. In 1994 he 
came back with the PLO but she and the children were not on 'the list' - were not given 
permits so they moved to Amman...Only in 1996 did she manage to get permits for 
herself and her two children to reunite with her husband in Ramallah. Now they live in 
Ramallah - work for thePA and move around from one rented flat to another - paying 
high rents in USD - because the local landlords abuse the "aedin" (the 'new' 
returnees)and demand the rent in USD... Despite of the fact that they haveproperty in 
Jaffa they cannot afford to buy a flat in Ramallah... I have befriended several such 
families - and it's a typical story. Until I met such people I never really understood what 
it was to be a refugee and how the Lebanon war of 1982 and the Gulf war in 1991 
really affected their families and lives andcreated a re-enactment of the painful 
experience of the Nakba of 48' - another uprooting,another exile and separation 
offamilies time after time. I also noticed that all of these people live in rented flats, 
sometimesin a newly built condo, but more oftenin a kind of a "semi basement" 
flat:The well off people of Ramallah, the lucky house owners'close' the area bellow 
their home (underneath the typical 'columns' of the house)to make a big flatwhich is 
usually very dark - and rent it out to the 'aedin' ( the 'returnees') for a lot of money... 
Thiswoman was just telling me how shedisliked this flat because it was so dark... I 
stayed overnight with another'returnee' family - slept in their flat which was of the 
same type. Indeed, this sense of depressing darknesswas the first impression I got 
when I entered theirhome. No sunshine entered the big rooms under the columns. 
However, my hosts - the 'returnee' refugee family - cherish their home, which is the 
first real home they have ever had since their expulsion from Beirut....I imagine that 
one day someone may write a story or make a film about these flats. 
Apropos films: Friday nightI wentto see a new Palestinian film in the Ramallah 
cinemateq.It was thegala of a new Palestinian movie about the struggle for the land 
and against the settlements - "Maussem al Zeitoun" - the Season of the Olives - by 
Elias Hanna. The main theme was the olive trees versus the settlements, with much 
more to it.It was a lovely evening - people seeking amoment of normalcy and mental 
sanityin the midst of a cruel reality of occupation, insecurity and daily humiliation.
I am going to see this movie again,here in the TAcinemateq tomorrow, Tusday at 
17:30. It will be interesting to compare the atmosphere and the discussion in these two 
places...Ramallah versus TA. 
PS - recommended..:-)
Yehudith

Dear All,
Please find enclosed a most important article reporting about a new polladdressing the 
Palestinian position regarding their intents of exercising the Right of Return. The poll 
was runon a very big sample of Palestinian refugees both in the occupied territories 
and the Diaspora - almost everywhere. 
The findings of such polls should be taken into consideration whiletrying to find an 
equitable and acceptable solution for the painful problem of the Palestinian Refugees, a 
problem which without solving it in a mutually satisfactory and acceptable way - there 
will be no solution to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict.
Yehudith

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Baruch Kimmerling 

To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:59 AM
Subject: RoR

  

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com 


 Would the exiles actually return?  
 James Bennet/NYT NYT 
Monday, July 14, 2003  
  

RAMALLAH, West Bank A mob attacked an eminent Palestinian political scientist 
Sunday as he prepared to announce a startling finding from a region-wide survey of 
Palestinian refugees: Only a small minority of them would insist on exercising a so-
called right of return to Israel as part of a comprehensive peace agreement.

Khalil Shikaki intended to explicate for the Arabic-language press the tensions and 
complexities of Palestinian society, but, struck, shoved and pelted with eggs but not 
seriously injured, he wound up starkly illustrating them instead.

Standing in the wreckage of his office here, as workers swept up the broken glass and 
shampooed the rugs, Shikaki offered a political analysis of the attack. He said that the 
dozens of rioters - who came prepared with their own press release, in Arabic and 
English, misrepresenting Shikaki's findings - were hijacking his press conference to 
signal the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

"They are trying to send a message that the right of return is sacred, and that you who 
are negotiating are on notice," said Shikaki, who is a refugee himself. "It's incitement." 
Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has accused Abbas of botching negotiations with 
Israel under a new American-backed peace plan. The two leaders have not spoken to 
each other since Abbas threatened to resign in a bitter argument last Monday night.

In perhaps the thorniest dispute of the conflict, Palestinians who fled or were driven 
from their homes during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 claim a right of return to live in 
what is now Israel. Israel rejects the claim, fearing that Palestinians intend to 
accomplish by demography what they have failed to do by force of arms - erase 
Israel's Jewish character.

Palestinian refugees and their descendants now number about four million, while Israel 
has roughly five million Jewish citizens and one million Arab citizens.

In the first such wide-ranging survey, Shikaki's researchers questioned 4,500 refugee 
families living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon. More than 95 
percent of them insisted that Israel recognize a right of return, he said.

But the researchers then presented five options for refugees, including financial 
compensation and moving to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The 
options were based on those negotiated but never formally endorsed by the two sides in 
January 2001, and they assumed that Israel formally recognized a right of return as 
reflected in a United Nations resolution, 194.

Only 10 percent of those questioned demanded permanent residence in Israel, a 
percentage that decreased further if the respondents were told they would have to take 
Israeli citizenship or that their old homes were gone. More than half - a total of 54 
percent - said they would accept compensation and homes in the West Bank and Gaza, 
or in land ceded by Israel in a territorial swap from some West Bank land.

Thirteen percent rejected any deal at all. The poll had a margin of error of less than 
three percentage points, Shikaki said. It did not include the roughly 10 percent of 
refugees living in Syria.

Shikaki said that his results showed that refugees were less interested in being standard-
bearers for a nationalist cause - a role assigned them by Arab nations as well as many 
Palestinians - than in living fuller lives.

"This is a slap in the face for all of us," he said. "Refugees are human beings with 
needs. These people want to live their lives."

Many refugees remain confined to camps, often living in squalid conditions, unable to 
vote or otherwise join in the life of surrounding towns or cities. Some Palestinian 
analysts say that Arab and Palestinian leaders prefer to maintain the refugees as an 
open political wound, rather than help them integrate into other societies.

The press statement of the group that invaded Shikaki's office stated that his study 
"claims that the vast majority of Palestinian refugees are prepared to renounce their 
Right of Return." Shikaki called that a deliberate misrepresentation of his results, which 
he had circulated among some Palestinian leaders before Sunday.

The statement carried the letterhead of the Palestine Liberation Organization, but Saji 
Salameh, director general of that body's Refugees Affairs department, disavowed any 
connection to the rioters and criticized their use of violence. He said of Shikaki's study, 
however, "We don't believe that it reflects the reality and the position of the refugees."

Asher Arian, an Israeli political scientist, said he had not seen the survey, and he 
cautioned that answers to the questions might vary over time. He called the right of 
return the most important issue to Israelis. "It raises the demons of demography," he 
said.

But, he said, Israelis might soften on the question, in the right circumstances. "We've 
seen Israeli public opinion very flexible when legitimate leadership makes an effort to 
lead it in that direction," he said.

The New York Times