by Ali Abunimah
Khalil Shikaki of the
Palestinian Center
for Policy and Survey Research was attacked by an angry mob
when he recently held a press conference announcing the results of
a poll conducted among 4,500 Palestinian refugees on the right of
return. In his study, Shikaki reported that only 10 percent of
Palestinian refugees would insist on returning to Israel and
becoming citizens there. Supporters of Israel and others who want
to disregard refugee rights in any solution to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict embraced the findings.
Former US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy, writing
with David Mack in the International Herald Tribune, seized
upon the result to propose that the refugee issue be resolved by
inviting the international community to "help fund the permanent
settlement of Palestinian refugees either in the new state of
Palestine or in third countries." In exchange, the United States
would pay to resettle in Israel 200,000 illegal Jewish settlers
now in the Occupied Territories. Murphy and Mack were silent about
the remaining 200,000 settlers concentrated around Jerusalem, and
one can infer that they would remain where they are.
M.J. Rosenberg of the left-leaning Israel Policy Forum also
welcomed Shikaki's poll, saying: "His findings rebut one of the
central tenets of the anti-Israel argument and is (sic) a threat
to rejectionist militants. Palestinians are not, apparently, set
on returning to homes they left over 55 years ago. On the
contrary, they recognize both the reality of Israel and the fact
that the partition of Palestine is final and permanent. The terror
groups which are attempting not merely to roll back 1967 but also
1948 do not represent Palestinian opinion. Essentially, they do
not have much of a constituency." Hence, according to Rosenberg,
for Palestinian refugees to insist on their fundamental human
rights somehow aligns them with "terror groups" and "rejectionists."
How could it be that for decades everyone -- not least the
refugees themselves -- mistakenly believed that granting rights to
millions of Palestinian refugees was the key to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict? How is it that now a single, dubious
poll threatens to make the entire problem disappear into a puff of
smoke? A closer look at the poll will help clear the fog.
Shikaki has not published his entire study, but only an extended
press release highlighting its key results. This makes it
difficult to evaluate his methodology. However, in the press
release he does present in full the central question given to
respondents, and it is worth looking at closely. It begins:
"We will now read you a proposed solution to the refugee problem
that was published in Palestinian papers in light of the Taba
negotiations in January 2000. We will then ask you a few
questions:
"The establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip and Israeli recognition of UN Resolution 194 or the
right of return. But the two sides would agree on the return of a
small number of refugees to Israel in accordance with a timetable
that extends for several years. Each refugee family would be able
to choose one of the following options:
"(1) Return to Israel in accordance with an annual quota and
become an Israeli citizen; (2) Stay in the Palestinian state that
will be established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and receive
fair compensation for the property taken over by Israel and for
other losses and suffering; (3) Receive Palestinian citizenship
and return to designated areas inside Israel that would be swapped
later on with Palestinian areas as part of a territorial exchange
and receive compensation; (4) Receive fair compensation for
property, losses, and suffering and stay in the host country
receiving its citizenship or Palestinian citizenship; (5) Receive
fair compensation for property, losses, and suffering and emigrate
to a European country or the US, Australia, or Canada and obtain
citizenship of that country or Palestinian citizenship."
The number of respondents choosing option (1) was 23 percent in
Lebanon, 12 percent in the West Bank and Gaza, and 5 per cent in
Jordan.
The problem with these options is that they are rigged in such a
way as to produce a result where most Palestinians choose not to
return.
First, the opening paragraph states a priori that only a "small
number" of refugees will actually be allowed to return and that
those lucky few may have to wait for many years. Second, the
question offers a choice between return and compensation as if
refugees are entitled to only one or the other.
UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948, which applies
the right of return to Palestinians, states: "Refugees wishing to
return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors
should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and
compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not
to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under
principles of international law or in equity, should be made good
by the governments or authorities responsible."
The original homes and property of many Palestinian refugees were
seized or destroyed by Israel. That is no less true for refugees
who might choose to return as it is for those who do not. What
this means in practice is that even those who exercise their right
of return are legally entitled to compensation for property that
no longer exists, which was damaged, or which was taken by Israel.
Yet the way Shikaki's options are formulated, they deny due
compensation to those Palestinians choosing to return to Israel
(though Palestinians opting to live in Israeli territory destined
to be swapped would be eligible). For Palestinian refugees,
therefore, the prospect of returning penniless and homeless to an
Israel in which they are legally second-class citizens is bound to
be far less appealing than the other choices. Why should
Palestinians who choose to go to the Palestinian state "receive a
fair compensation for the property taken over by Israel and for
other losses and suffering," while those who go to Israel get
nothing? How has their suffering been any less severe during the
past decades?
Such polls as Shikaki's don't measure public
opinion, they shape it and steer public policy in a predetermined
direction.
Yet even if it were true that "only" 10 percent of refugees seek
to return to present-day Israel, this translates into almost
400,000 people -- a number Israel could easily absorb. If that is
the case, the Israelis have even less of an excuse to continue
denying the right of return to those wanting to exercise it.
Whatever the true numbers wanting to return, the refugees cannot
be wished or polled away. Peace must be made with them, not
against them, and that means offering them real choices that
reflect their inalienable rights.
Related Links:
