The July Camp David summit opened the topic of the Palestinian refugees for discussion by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. The refugee issue, one of the issues designated in the 1993 Declaration of Principles for final status negotiations, had lain dormant for decades while attention and peacemaking efforts were riveted on Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The beginning of negotiations on the refugees' future has awakened both hopes and fears. Study of the refugee issue by church?based peace seekers, as well as by policy makers and negotiators, is necessary.

Most of the coverage of the July summit emphasized the problems and possibilities that emerged in the groundbreaking negotiations over Jerusalem's status. The other major "sticking point" at the summit was reported to be the issue of the Palestinian refugees. The opening negotiating positions of the Palestinians was that Israel must acknowledge responsibility for creating the refugees, grant them a right to return and compensate those who cannot. Israel's position was to accept no responsibility for Palestinian refugees while allowing some to return for the purpose of family reunification. Both of these issues ? Jerusalem and the refugees ? carry implications for Arab leaders other than Mr. Arafat and for Arab peoples other than the Palestinians. Palestinians and other Arabs were worried that Mr. Arafat, under pressure from President Clinton, would agree to proposals that would abandon the Palestinian refugees and make an agreement undermining their rights as established by international law.

Who is a Refugee?

Palestinian refugees are not only those people living in camps in neighboring Arab countries run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA.) Many no longer live in camps. Some are not even registered with UNRWA; and many of the refugees from 1948-Israel live in Gaza and the West Bank -- the emerging state of Palestine. Palestinians and their descendants who have become citizens of other countries, including the United States, often consider themselves refugees but their status as such varies from country to country.

UNRWA was established to provide assistance to, "Any person whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict." Although the numbers are disputed, the United Nations estimated in 1949 that 726,000 Palestinian Arabs who had lived in the area taken over by Israel became refugees. A second major exodus of Palestinians took place nineteen years later during the 1967 war when approximately 300,000 Palestinians fromGaza and the West Bank were displaced, many for a second time, with most going to Jordan.

With their descendants also considered refugees, the Palestinian refugee population is the world's largest. As of June 1999, 3,625,592 refugees were registered with UNRWA: 1,512,742 in Jordan, 798,444 in Gaza, 569,741 in the West Bank, 374,521 in Syria and 370,144 in Lebanon. Of those registered refugees, 32.6% were living in UNRWA's 59 camps.

The United States is the largest contributor to UNRWA, providing 31% or $80.4 million toward the budget in 1998. Since UNRWA's purpose is limited to the refugees' humanitarian needs ?- education, health and development -? it has not been a voice for the refugees' political rights. UNRWA was established prior to the adoption of the principal bodies of international refugee law ? the UN High Commission on Refugees in 1950 and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. As a result, Palestinian refugees are explicitly excluded from coverage by these laws. One of the results of this anomaly is that the Palestinian refugees are absent from the agendas of the non?governmental organizations (NGOs), including the church based programs that focus on refugee issues from a UNHCR basis.

The Right of Return

The U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, of December 1948, is the source of this central element of the Palestinian position, which is the popular rallying cry. The resolution declares, "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..."

Israel has argued that it bears little moral responsibility for the flight of the Palestinian refugees and that a de facto "population transfer" took place as Israel accepted post?1948 immigrating Jews from Arab states. Israel claims that it is the Arabs' fault because of their rejection of the UN partition plan and attack on Israel in 1948. The common view among Israelis is that no Israeli government would accept substantially changing the Jewish demographic dominance and character of the state ? the very foundation of the Jewish state.

Even though UNGA Resolution 194 does not have the status of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, in being the frame of reference of the Oslo peace process, it must be kept in mind that the Oslo process cannot negate the applicability of international law. Moreover, UNSC Resolution 242 does call for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," which seems to affirm UNGA Resolution 194.

But much has happened on the ground since 1948. Of course, many of the actual homes of the refugees no longer exist (almost 400 Arab villages in 1948 Israel were destroyed) and their land has become part of the state of Israel. Jewish refugees from Europe live there now, along with Jews from Arab countries. During the course of the last 50 years, the Palestinian political goal has moved away from the restoration of the whole of Palestine, as it existed during the British mandate period, to the actualization of their self?determin- ation in a state of Palestine next to Israel.

Some now suggest a reinterpretation of "home" from meaning an individual's actual house to their "homeland," and that the 1948 Palestinian refugees' right of return should take place in a new Palestinian state. However, the capability of a state of Palestine to quickly absorb large numbers of refugees from Lebanon and Syria is severely limited. Building a viable Palestinian state with a healthy civil society must remain a high priority. A mass migration would threaten both the viability of a new state of Palestine and, with many refugees angry that they cannot return to their land within Israel, Israel's security as well.

Compensation

UNGA Resolution 194 also states that "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." Preliminary studies show the considerable complexity involved in determining:

who would receive compensation ? the individuals and their descendants, the Palestinian authority/state, the host governments for past or future settlement;

how compensation amounts would be determined and paid ? with a claims?based system linked to actual properties lost, or per capita pay benefit to the poorer refugees;

when compensation would be paid ? in a lump sum or over a period of time; and from where the monies would come ? from Israel, the oil?rich Arab states, the United Nations or a group of donor nations including the United States.

Other factors raised in debate over compensation are whether reparations are due for the trauma caused to Palestinians and whether Arab states' compensation to Jews who left for Israel is a separate or related matter. Costs related to the resettlement of Palestinians, wherever they might go, would be an additional matter. Certainly, the new Palestinian state, already in economic trouble, will require massive aid for water projects, housing and development in order to absorb large numbers of refugees.

A figure of $40 billion for compensation alone was reported to be floated by Palestinian officials during the Camp David talks.

Principles for a Solution

A solution that can enhance the durability of Israeli?Palestinian and Israeli?Arab peace must take into account moral and political rights while acknowledging realities on the ground. For Palestinians, Israeli acceptance of the principle of their right of return, and thus an acknowledgment by Israel of its responsibility and guilt for the plight of the refugees, is of paramount importance. Following that, there is flexibility in how that principled right would actually be carried out.

The availability of options for the refugees, and of individual choice, is essential for a plan to gain widespread acceptance by the refugees. One option must be to return to Israel. It is probable that many Palestinians would not choose to live in Israel once the principle of their right to do so is acknowledged. Those who cannot be repatriated must be compensated and offered other choices. Some would choose to move to or continue to live in the Palestinian state. Some, especially those who have intermarried into local families, would choose their host country as their permanent home. Another related option would be to choose Palestinian nationality, but remain in their current host country. Resettlement in a third country ? in the Gulf, in Europe, Australia, Latin America, Canada or the United States ? would be the choice of others.

An acceptable solution must bring Israelis confidence that their neighbors at long last accept their state "within secure and recognized borders free from threats or acts of force" - language which is also part of UNSC Resolution 242. Thus, a solution needs to have regard for the integrity and security of Israel. Such a solution should not leave embittered, neglected refugees who may be intent on destroying a peace agreement as well as the Palestinian authority they felt signed away their rights and Israel itself.

A solution will require the cooperation of the host countries, particularly Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. In Lebanon, the Palestinians are prohibited from many occupations and the government severely restricts building in the camps. Many Lebanese blame the Palestinians for Lebanon's conflicts - internally and with Israel ?? and insist they must leave Lebanon. Nearly all are from the Galilee which is in Israel. Yet, a quarter of third?generation refugees have a Lebanese mother or father. In Syria, the refugees have full mobility and equal rights with Syrian citizens with the exception of voting in national elections. Jordan gave citizenship to all refugees, who along with a large non?refugee Palestinian population constitute the majority of the population. Despite the differences in the status of Palestinian refugees, the political position taken by Lebanon, Syria and Jordan is the same - they should have the right of return.

Toward the Future

One creative proposal by an editorial board member of al?Quds, a Palestinian newspaper, was republished in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, on July 24. His idea was to realize the refugees' right of return by building three settlement clusters for them within Israel near the 1967 border, which would then be annexed to the Palestinian state. One would be in the lower Galilee, another near the southern West Bank and a third in the Negev near Gaza. The symmetry to Israel's almost certain annexation of three Jewish settlement blocks in the West Bank is obvious.

Suggested action:

Since the issue of Palestinian refugees has received little attention, letters?to?the?editor are highly recommended. Since it is unlikely that your paper has received lots of letters on this topic, yours just might be published ? especially if you can make reference to a related editorial or column. Remember to keep it short. The letters section is considered to be widely read and offers a great soapbox for advocates.

Be sure and send your letter, whether or not it is published, to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The letter will be directed to the office of the U.S. negotiating team of Dennis Ross and Aaron Miller. They need to know that U.S. advocates of Israeli?Arab peace are concerned about the Palestinian refugees.

Make these points in your letters:

1. My concern for the Palestinian refugees is both humanitarian and political. It is not possible for Israeli-Arab peace to be enduring if the Palestinian refugees are not treated with adequate justice.
2. The principle of the "right of return" that was established in U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 should be endorsed by the United States and accepted by Israel.
3. Israeli acknowledgment of its responsibility in creating the refugees is fundamental for reconciliation between the peoples and for resolution of the conflict. While it is not feasible that the "right of return" can be fully implemented now, 52 years after the people became refugees, it should be one option among others for the refugees. For Israel to permit only 100,000 to return for family reunification purposes is not sufficient.
4. The refugees should be able to choose among options for their future - return to Israel, live in their host country with citizenship or with Palestinian nationality, live in the new Palestine or resettle in a third country.
5. The situation of the refugees in Lebanon is especially dire and their needs must be a high priority. If their hope for a better future in Lebanon or elsewhere is lost, it will surely destabilize
   Israeli?Lebanese relations.
6. U.S. contributions to the funding of UNRWA are essential and must not be decreased until the humanitarian and political situation of the Palestinian refugees is resolved.
7. While the United States and the international community will need to assist in the financing of compensation to the refugees, Israel's primary responsibility cannot be dismissed.

Send letters to:
Secretary Madeleine Albright
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

General Assembly Guidance:

The Middle East ? Concerning the Peace Process: The 209th General Assembly (1997) urges the U.S. Government to continue a proactive role in moving the peace process forward, giving particular attention to Israeli security concerns, the status of Palestinian refugees and political prisoners, and the call for a just resolution of the final status of Jerusalem.

The 196th General Assembly (1984), in its resolution on the Middle East, reaffirmed The Right of Return of peoples who have been displaced by conflict, or the necessity of compensation should return prove infeasible.