The problem of the Palestinian refugees will
overshadow the next stage in the talks between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority. Substantial pressure will be exerted on Israel to comply with
the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” of the Palestinian
refugees, the consensus being that peace in the Middle East will not
endure without resolving the refugee question.
For 50 years the Arabs have set the ground rules for
the discourse on the Palestinian refugees. They have taken control of
nearly all the international “playing fields”, arrogating the right to
fabricate the facts. Their contentions have become axiomatic in every
debate on the resolution of the problem, thus constituting the framework
within which diplomats, politicians and academics operate. They have made
the plight of the refugees a potent weapon in their arsenal to
delegitimize the State of Israel. In contrast, the world has been
impervious to the trauma undergone by the Jewish refugees from Arab
countries.
This was evident in the proceedings of the Regional
Work Group, set up within the parameters of the Madrid conference. In the
course of the deliberations of the Second Plenary (in Ottawa, November
1992), the Israelis proposed treating the problem of final status of the
Palestinian refugee problem in the context of population exchange: the
Palestinian refugees had been replaced by the influx of Jewish refugees
from the Arab countries. The Palestinian delegation countered this notion
of “exchange” by contending that the Jewish immigrants to Israel had come
voluntarily, while the Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their
homes.
However, in dealing with
the “right of return” it should never be forgotten that the bulk of the
Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine were “new immigrants” (Between
1922 and 1939 Arab immigration swelled, attracted by the prosperity of the
“Zionist” economy. The Arab population during these 17 years increased by
216% in Haifa, by 134% in Jaffa and 97% in Jerusalem)
whereas the Jews had resided in the Arab countries for millennia. Whereas
the Palestinian Arabs were relegated to the margins of society, Jewish
refugees underwent a long and difficult process of adaptation and
integration into Israeli society.
Perhaps in recognition of this, the preamble to the
Madrid Declaration mentions UN Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which
refrain from making a direct reference to Palestinian refugees but rather
refer to refugees as a generic term.
The
parameters of the debate on resolving the problem of the Palestinian
refugees should not revolve around the refugees; this transforms the means
to an end. The axis around which the debate should revolve is the
imperative of an enduring peace. Peace will endure only if the security of
Israel is guaranteed throughout the peace process and afterwards. This
begs the question of whether, in the pursuit of peace, concessions will be
made that could compromise the Jewish state.