Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

Annapolis: A "Generous Offer" for Palestinian Refugees?

By Neta Golan, AlterNet. Posted December 5, 2007.


Under Israel and Bush's "solution", Palestinian refugees who had been expelled from what is now Israel could return, not to their homes, but to small, non-contiguous parts of less than 22% of their original homeland.
Advertisement

Anyone familiar with Israeli politics was not surprised that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not acknowledge Israel's occupation in his speech at Annapolis. What was surprising was that, while stopping short of mentioning the "R" word -- refugees -- Olmert did acknowledge the Palestinian refugee problem.

Referring to the Palestinians, the Israeli Prime Minister stated in his Annapolis speech: "your people, too, have suffered for many years; and there are some who still suffer. Many Palestinians have been living for decades in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew up, wallowing in poverty, in neglect, alienation, bitterness, and a deep, unrelenting sense of humiliation."

Olmert's characterization of the refugees is only partially correct. Poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness and feelings of humiliation, are only one component of the refugee experience. There are also other components, such as community, pride, generosity, and perseverance. This one-dimensional characterization obviously suits Olmert's conception of a solution. It also casts refugees as objects that will be acted upon (once again), rather than subjects who can genuinely participate in finding a solution. A recent article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, titled "Refugees and Jerusalem: A question of money," sheds light on Olmert's statements. The article revealed the outlines of the deal being cooked to sell the rights of the Palestinian refugees.

In addition to oral testimonies given both by Palestinian refugees and Jewish combatants, many official documents describe policies and actions taken by Jewish militias which were designed to expel Palestinians from what has become the state Israel. According to Israeli Historian Benny Morris, "In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was to become the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves." Yet Olmert presented the refugee issue as a humanitarian problem, not unlike one caused by a natural disaster, saying that "Israel will be part of an international mechanism that will assist in finding a solution to this problem." Olmert made it clear that he was not admitting Israel's responsibility for creating the problem by saying "I came here today not in order to settle historical accounts between us…", and by equating the Palestinian refugee problem with the "constant suffering of many Israelis."

The solution Olmert suggests is "an international effort, in which we (Israel) will participate, to assist these Palestinians in finding a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state that will be established in the territories agreed upon between us." The suggestion that the refugees do not have the choice to return to the lands from which they were expelled, but instead "return" to a future Palestinian state, is contrary to international humanitarian law, and to UN resolution 194 that "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." Despite this, the United States President George Bush promised Ariel Sharon in a letter on the 14th of April 2004 "an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel." Despite the illegality of these promises, they were ratified on June 23, 2004 by both the United States House and Senate. Olmert refers to this letter in his statement as a point of departure for the negotiations.

Working groups are now developing plans to implement Bush's promise. According to Ha'aretz, The Aix Group, "a semi-official political-economic backchannel," is developing a plan for Palestinian refugees. The Aix Group's members include Israeli, Palestinian and international economic experts, academics, members of economic organizations, and officials from international institutions, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, who participate in the Aix Group in their personal capacities.

The group is administered by a steering committee led by Prof. Gilbert Benhayoun, a Moroccan-born Frenchman, Prof. Arie Arnon, economics professor from Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, Said Bamya, the former deputy minister for economic affairs in the Palestinian Authority, Dr. Ron Pundak, director of the Peres Center and Dr. Samir Hazbun from DATA Studies and Consultation. Other partners include the European Union, French donors, the World Bank, the French Foreign Ministry, the International Development Research Center in Canada, the General Council of the Bouches du Rhone, and the Regional Council of Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: right of return, refugees, peace talks, palestine, israel, annapolis

Neta Golan is an Israeli peace with justice activist living in Ramallah, and a founder of the International Solidarity Movement. For more information see: http://www.apartheidmasked.org/.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No Comments? Interesting how Wingnuts have shit to say about the Israel/Palestine conflict itself.
Posted by: yellow on Dec 6, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The just like to weigh on US foreign policy where there is actually more fertile ground for conspiracy mongering. The Israel/Palestine conflict actually requires some reflective thought. So here goes some.

I feel the Annapolis talks lack transparency and will not benefit the Palestinians. Unless there is trasparent discussion leading to a total withdrawl from the territories occupied in 1967 and the allowing of at least a million Arab refugees to return (more would stress the ecological carrying capacity of the land) the talks should not be seen as anything but a tactic for quelling the issue.

This is about as fair a deal one should reasonably expect. That is unless the wingnuts are prepared to withdraw completely east of the Mississippi and allow the area from the river to the Pacific Coast to become a Native American State with full sovereign rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]