Right of Return

I've been meaning to blog about this for a while.

Evelyn Gordon had an interesting idea recently in the Jerusalem Post: Israel should accept the full right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel, but it should do so only under the definition of a refugee used by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which considers a refugee someone who himself has fled, rather than the UN Relief and Works Agency definition, which accords the Palestinian refugees a right no other refugee group in the world enjoys - the right to pass along refugee status to their offspring.

It is the latter definition which accounts for official UN estimates of Palestinian refugees of upwards of 4 million people, a population Israel would be suicidal to repatriate. Only 700,000 or so Palestinians fled (or were driven out) during the 1948 war, of those Gordon estimates about 200,000 are still around. It's only if you include their children and grandchildren that the number balloons. Her argument is that by accepting the right of return, but only according to the UNHCR definition, Israel would turn the tables on the Palestinians, forcing them to explain why they should enjoy a privileged status as refugees and, more importantly, making them seem like the recalcitrant party. She also argues, less plausibly, that Israel's negotiating position vis a vis the future of Jerusalem would be appreciably strengthened.

As I said, it's an interesting idea.

On principle, Gordon is right on. There is no legitimate reason for Palestinian refugees to be treated specially, except for use as a political weapon against Israel. Indeed, it is arguable that the ability to transfer refugee status to offspring is a cause of Palestinian suffering, encouraging them to continue to live off the largesse of the international community, rather than doing as other refugee groups have done and get on with their lives. (It doesn't help that surrounding countries are more than happy to let the refugees continue to wallow in their misery).

But there is at least one decent reason for Israel to stay the course. Accepting the right of return would also be an implicit acceptance of responsibility for the plight of the refugees, something Israel has rightfully refused to do. The Arab states launched a war of annihilation against the nascent Jewish state in 1948, in flagrant disregard for the will of the international community and the declarations of the United Nations. Whether by war or by design (I will not address this here, perhaps another time), 1.4 million people were displaced in the ensuing conflict, half of them Palestinian Arabs, the other half Jewish Arabs who had resided in surrounding Arab states for generations. It is more than ironic - it is downright cynical - for the Arabs to now paint themselves as the upholders of international law by insisting on implementation of the right of return.

Perhaps it is foolish to place principle above pragmatism in this instance. Gordon's suggestion could have very real and useful benefits. My objection is purely principled. Still, it would be wrong for Israel to accept responsibility for the plight of the refugees when it plainly belongs elsewhere.