Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| How should Palestinians decide on the refugees’ “right of return” in any peace treaty? |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2012-11-13
Palestinian refugees in Beirut have told PLO Chairman Abbas that it is “time to go” because of his remarks suggesting that pre-1967 Israel belongs to Israel and should not be a destination for “returning” Palestinian refugees. What a Treaty might say about the Right of Return The possibilities for “return” seem to be: [1] hard-line Israeli position: no right of return for Palestinians; [2] International and maximal Palestinian position: right of return to territory of origin (pre-1967 Israeli territory) for all Palestinians who (or whose ancestors) lived there in 1947-48 and who became refugees outside Israel—or a meaningful right of compensation as an alternative. UNGA 194 (1948) provides: Article 11 reads:; [3] Something in between. Who should decide what the Palestinian people will or will not accept in this matter? How should they decided it? I imagine that when the PLO and Israel have negotiated a draft peace treaty, that that draft will be publicized for a month or two (to avoid the nasty surprises that the secretly negotiated Oslo Treaty provided) and then somehow voted upon in an election of ratification. I leave to Israel to decide how it or its citizens should ratify a peace treaty. As to the Palestinians, it would seem that those voting should include at least those Palestinians presently living on the territory of Mandatory Palestine (perhaps excluding Israeli Palestinians) and the Palestinians living as exiles in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and elsewhere. As a practical matter, the vote might be restricted (among those who regard themselves as refugees) to those who the UNRWA regards as refugees—however, attempts by Israel or the USA to redefine “refugee” might lead to another method by which Palestinians would decide who should vote “as a refugee”. If there are separate Palestinian ratification votes—one for the peace treaty as a whole and another for the provision, if any, relating to return of refugees—then it should also be decided whether Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank should vote on the “right of return” provision. I imagine a vote conducted with the help of the UN—and free of Israeli or PA (or other) coercion—to determine if the Palestinian refugees accept (ratify) the draft peace treaty’s “right of return” provisions. I do not believe that the rights of the refugees, especially those “outside”, should be determined by the Palestinians living under Israeli control, and certainly not by the PLO/PA leadership—long suspected of corruption and near Quisling status. Perhaps a 67% vote of refugees would be needed to ratify the “right of return” provisions of a draft peace treaty, and a 67% vote of all Palestinians to ratify the treaty as a whole. If a two-state “peace” is under discussion, what are the boundaries, what the division of naturally occurring water, what about depletion of the aquifer during the 44-year occupation, what the provisions for visiting Muslim, Christian, and Jewish holy places by Palestinians? by (all) Israelis? What the status of those presently Jewish settlers? If a one-state “peace” is under discussion, what the provisions for democracy? For Palestinians running for office on non-Zionists or anti-Zionist lists? What the provisions for return of property seized by Israel in 1948 from Palestinians? And in either case, what the provisions for “return” of Palestinian refugees to pre-1967 Israeli territory? elsewhere within Mandatory Palestine. The questions about “right of return” are not the only thorny problems relating to peace-making, but they are distinguishable as pertaining to rather a large number of people who live outside Israeli control at the moment. Even if today is not the time to decide on how a peace treaty should be ratified, it may well be a perfect time for a new election of the PLO Executive Committee and selection of new PLO leadership. This is important to heal rifts between Hamas and Fatah and to bring the voices of the refugees back into Palestinian discussions before peace negotiations get under way the next time. After all, the time of negotiating peace may be even more important than the time of ratifying any proposal that emerges. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |