WHO IS A PALESTINIAN REFUGEE? : Melbourne Indymedia

Who is a "Palestinian Refugee"? Well, the short answer is, it could be almost anyone, even you or me. The long answer gets a bit more complicated, but not too much. You see "Palestinian Refugee" is a prized political status. Let me explain, but first...

Lately, a lot has been made of the so-called "right of return" of "Palestinian Refugees". Two different private "peace" initiatives have come to light recently. The first, the Nusseibeh-Ayalon document, called "the People Vote" is a petition that Israeli Adm. and former head of the General Security Service - Israel's F.B.I. - Ami Ayalon and Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh have circulated. It calls on Israel to give up all the territory the Arabs lost in the 1967 Middle East war and turn the land over to the Palestinians for a state. Although Article 4, covering the refugee issue, says "Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel," it doesn't define who is a "Palestinian Refugee".

US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech in Washington recently, disclosed he had met with Ayalon and Nusseibeh. Praising their efforts, Wolfowitz said that the Nusseibeh-Ayalon proposal represented "a significant grass-roots movement."

The second, more significant initiative, by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, has been dubbed the "Geneva Accord". They held private talks in Geneva and came up with a plan for a Palestinian state on nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza. Most Jewish settlers would be uprooted. In their agreement, they use the term "Palestinian Refugees" to mean, as registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). But nowhere in the agreement is the term clearly defined.

The Geneva Accord draft was recently sent to all Israeli families, as part of a public campaign ahead of the December 1st accord-signing ceremony to be held in Geneva. The draft consists of 48 pages, including a map; it's claimed that 1.9 million copies in Hebrew were printed, under the title of "The Geneva Initiative - a model for a permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement." Two hundred thousand copies were said to be printed in Arabic, and 100,000 in Russian. The cost of the campaign has been estimated at 3 million shekels -about $650,000. France and Belgium are rumored to be underwriting the costs.

These unofficial and unauthorized negotiations drew virtually no official US attention until Secretary of State Colin Powell recently responded with an encouraging letter to Beilin and Rabbo. "Dear Yossi and Yasser," Powell wrote, "The U.S. remains committed to the president's two-state vision and to the road map, but we also believe that projects such as yours are important in helping sustain an atmosphere of hope."

The Quartet - US, EU, UN and Russia - issued in April 2003, "A Performance-Based Roadmap To A Permanent Two-State Solution To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Israel - through Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - and the Palestinian Authority - through then Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas - at the Aqaba Summit, accepted the roadmap. But the roadmap only mentions refugees in passing, never defining them, and leaves it to final-status talks to determine their disposition.

Back in the summer - after the roadmap was announced - Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, speaking at a hotel in the Lebanese capital Beirut said, "No condition has been set for a return [only] to an independent Palestinian state. The right of return is no longer an illusion. It is an integral part of the Arab peace initiative, which is one of the reference points in the roadmap." Shaath continued, "I want to be clear, this right includes returning to an independent state and to Palestinian cities in the Jewish state. Whether a person returns to Haifa [in Israel] or to Nablus [Shechem in Judea/Samaria, the West Bank] their return is guaranteed," he promised. The PA minister was referring to the Saudi initiative adopted by an Arab League summit meeting in Beirut in March 2002. Evidently the Palestinians see the roadmap very differently than the Israelis do.

So problematic is the "right of return" for Israeli politicians that even opposition leader Knesset Member Shimon Peres of Labor and far-left Meretz party MK's Yossi Sarid and Ran Cohen, after hearing of Shaath's speech, emphasized that they would adamantly oppose a peace agreement that includes a Palestinian right of return to Israel, since such a right poses a threat to the state's identity and to the solution of two states for two peoples. Labor MK Matan Vilnai said, "The Palestinians had better realize that all the parties in Israel are united against the so-called right of return."

Quickly, senior Israeli Foreign Ministry officials said that, "there will never be a return of refugees to the State of Israel." And Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner emphasized that the road map did not address the right of return, and that refugees would never be allowed to return to Israel. "It's a statement that can only hurt things because it's false," he said. "The roadmap says absolutely nothing about the [refugees'] right of return and this statement is detrimental" to implementation of the roadmap.
"Israel has no intention, under any circumstance and within any framework, of accepting the return of refugees in Israeli cities which Nabil Shaath terms Palestinian cities," Pazner said. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin also jumped in declaring, "There is no Israeli government that will ever accept it. There will be no Palestinian state so long as they continue to espouse the right of return."

And they're all right; Israeli Jews won't accept "Palestinian Refugees" returning to Israel. According to a recent study, The Peace Index Project conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University on August 31 to September 2, 2003, When told that "according to international law, people who leave their homes during war out of their own desire or because they are expelled, have the right to return to their home at the end of the conflict," and then asked, "Do you agree or disagree to the idea that this principle is appropriate also for the case of the Palestinian refugees?" 76.3% of Israeli Jews disagreed.

Then asked, "If the last thing in the way of reaching a peace agreement was Israel's recognition in principle of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees where this recognition did not mean actually giving the refugees the opportunity to return. Under those circumstances would you support or oppose Israel recognizing the principle of right of return?" Again, an overwhelming majority of two-thirds opposed such an agreement. But notice in all this discussion that, who is a "Palestinian Refugee", is never defined.

Neither the former PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas nor the current one Ahmed Qureia, have given up their perceived "right of return for refugees," neither have any other Palestinian leaders. In a September 1999 visit to China - according to the newspaper Al-Ayyam - Qureia demanded the so-called "right of return" as a basic condition for peace, "Either [we achieve] a just peace that will guarantee the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including [the] Return, self determination, and the establishment of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, or there will be no peace, but a return to the struggle in all its forms," he said.

Two of the better articles to have appeared recently, discussing many different aspects of the "Palestinian Refugees" issue - including whether the so-called "right of return" is recognized by General Assembly Resolution 194, it isn't - are, "Who Wants to be a Palestinian Refugee?" by Steven Plaut, and "How the West Weakens Israel" by David Bedein. Yet they never define who a "Palestinian Refugee" is either.

I think I've kept you in suspense long enough, lets look at the only existing "legal" definition of who a "Palestinian Refugee" is. It comes from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who is a "relief and human development agency, providing education, healthcare, social services and emergency aid to over four million refugees living in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab republic," as per their website. So-called "Palestinian Refugees" living the good life in America, Europe, or elsewhere, don't count.

"Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine [the Palestine Mandate] between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than four million in 2002, and continues to rise due to natural population growth," again as per their website.

Notice the phrase "covers the descendants of persons," unlike other refugees under the UN's auspices; "Palestinian Refugees" are able to transfer refugee status on to their heirs. What a political concession from the UN...

Before discussing anything further, I want to point out that the registration of "refugees" occurred a full two years after the conflict. Many other reliable estimates put the figure lower, at about 550,000-600,00. But even that, includes the 36,800 "legal" & "illegal" Arab immigrants - from North Africa, Egypt, Syria Lebanon, Jordan, and the Arabian Peninsula - to the Palestine Mandate as reported by the British administration of the time. That also includes 57,000 Bedouin-nomads who had no permanent domicile. And that includes at least 170,000 Arabs - originally from the West Bank or Gaza - who moved into Jewish areas - that later became the State of Israel - looking for work during the Mandate period, and who later fled, during the war, and returned home. If you subtract all these people, real refugees probably number no more than 300,000.

Joan Peters in "From Time Immemorial" notes that her "maximum figure of 343,000 is less than half the number of refugees claimed by the Arabs immediately after their leaving, before the numbers were reportedly further 'inflated' in the refugee camps." By 1950, the Arab nationalists of Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt and North Africa, Syria, and Lebanon who volunteered to be "Palestinian Refugees" managed to triple the figure. So that we have the impossible claim that 300,000 people in 1948 have grown to more than 4 million in just 55 years.

I want to point out that UNRWA's definition of "Palestinian Refugees" as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine [the Palestine Mandate] between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict," in theory could have applied equally to Jews as well as Arabs. In fact, before 1948 Jews were called Palestinians - because they lived in the Palestine Mandate - whereas Arabs frowned on the label and continued to identify themselves only as Arabs. Claiming to be part of the greater "Arab nation". It can be seen even in how they named their institutions, such as the "Arab Higher Committee".

As UNRWA said, "services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance." It should be noted that about 900,000 Jews became refugees from Arab countries, when they were expelled or fled under threat of death - in the same period - another 20th century example of ethnic cleansing. They lost their land, homes, property and possessions, businesses, and community assets - such as Synagogues and other communal properties. About 650,000 went to the Palestine Mandate area - later Israel - if the State of Israel hadn't taken care of them, they too would have qualified for UNRWA aid. Why didn't the Arab states help their brothers?

For that matter, when the Arab states, Arafat and the PA demand compensation for the so-called refugees, you should know that Israel, back in the early 1950's - to help alleviate the plight of the "Palestinian" Refugees" - released monies from dormant Bank Accounts (of the refugees) totaling over $50 million at the time, through the UN agencies dealing with them. They might demand the return of real estate - how much did they really own? - but their liquid assets have long been turned over to them.

There you have it, the UN's definition of a "Palestinian Refugee": Any person - who lived in the Palestine Mandate two years before the creation of the State of Israel (1948), and their descendants.

So you may end up with absurd scenarios like, a young Arab man from Iraq moving to the Palestine Mandate in the late-1930's, looking for work, and then fleeing when the war broke out in 1948. He then moves to Jordan and marries a nice Bedouin girl, not "Palestinian". He has 7 kids, and they marry nice Bedouin boys and girls. Today he has 29 grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren. That means, at least 48 refugees - according to the UN - plus the spouses (family reunification don't forget). Maybe that's how you get from 300,000 to 4 million?

Or, the equally absurd scenario of a young North African Arab man fleeing the British war against the Nazis in 1945, who then settles in the Palestine Mandate, marries a nice Italian girl, only to flee to Gaza with the outbreak of hostilities against the Jews in 1948. He's counted along with all his descendants - who by the way also married Europeans - as a "Palestinian Refugee"? Forget the "natural population growth" the UN claims. The numbers are being played with. "Palestinian Refugee" status is a coveted political symbol, not to mention a lucrative "job", with economic benefits from UNRWA and the PLO.

It's ludicrous that someone who lived in the Palestine Mandate for two and a half years, could be on the "International Dole" for the next 50 years, along with all his descendants. It's just plain wrong, that people who moved to Haifa or Tel-Aviv from the West Bank or Gaza, then returned home, should claim refugee status, and cry over their lost economic opportunities - working for the Jews - and demand the world give them a hand-out. What a cushy "job". What great benefits, at the world's expense. UNRWA's largest donors are the United States, European Commission, the UK and Sweden. Other major donors include the Gulf Arab States, Scandinavian countries, Japan and Canada. They should all be furious...

And why should all these "Palestinian Refugees" - many of who aren't even indigenous to the area - have a "right of return" to the area of the former Palestine Mandate - Israel or the Palestinian Authority?

I just can't get it out of my head, "Who is a Palestinian Refugee?" Well it could have been you or me.

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: http://www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko

(c) 2003/5764 Pasko

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/23/ariel_natan_pasko_5910.htm

Hey Pasko, I don't know if I follow your, ahem, logic.

"Real refugees probably number no more than 300,000". Their descendents are therefore neither refugees nor Palestinians? Maybe you could count up how many "real aborigines" there are in Australia and help out John Ariel Howard with his own genocide problem.

You say that millions masquerading as Palestinian refugees have been living on the "international dole" - generous hand-outs paid for by the Israeli impounded wealth of their Palestinian ancestors? I understand. That's wonderful compensation for having your land occupied, your family home razed to the ground and your people terrorised by the latest US military hardware. Sharon really is more humane than Hitler.

So-called Palestinian refugees enjoying a comfortable life abroad - it makes me wonder why they would lobby for a "right of return", why they even need a homeland?

It all seems too hard. Better that we allow Israel to fill it's settlements with "real Israeli's" - the ones from Europe, America, Australia, Africa and Russia. And keep on sending money, concrete walls don't come cheap.

Long live compassionate reporting, hey Pasko. I can't wait for your PhD.

my birthright
by Brooklyn-born Baruch Thursday November 27, 2003 at 12:00 AM

"...the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a "right" to Palestine, based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered." - U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's 1919 King Crane Commission Report http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/docs/kncr.htm

long haired Jew boy.

short haired terrorist

Thanks Turing
by Mossad anti fag squad Friday November 28, 2003 at 01:46 PM

I.P address logged.
We are still watching you.

'Allah Akhbar' Echoes in Times Square While Brownback Meets Chalabi

Foes of Saddam Tell Congress: 'Give Us the Tools'

WASHINGTON - Political momentum for American recognition of the Iraqi National Congress as the provisional government of Iraq is surging following the testimony before Congress this week of the leader of the group, which opposes Saddam Hussein.

Senator Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, left Monday's hearing of the Near East Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing telling the Forward that he intended to "push a number of the proposals" made by INC leader Ahmad Chalabi. "The easier ones I think we can do," said Mr. Brownback, the subcommittee's chairman. Meanwhile, a State Department spokesman, James Rubin, said the State Department was "exploring...steps to work more effectively with an Iraqi opposition."

Advocates for the free, democratic Iraqi opposition see the next few weeks as a crucial time in their effort to oust Saddam from power in the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. For the first time, a group of senators - spearheaded by Mr. Brownback, by Arizona's John McCain and by the majority leader, Trent Lott of Mississippi - are suggesting that the best way to eliminate Saddam's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction is to replace him with a democratic government. The Senate was scheduled to vote on Thursday on a resolution to indict Saddam as a war criminal. And Mr. Chalabi is meeting with Pentagon officials this week.

"Now that Saddam again threatens not only the Iraqi people, but the region and the world, the Iraqi people ask you to give us the tools and let us finish the job," Mr. Chalabi told a packed hearing room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. "All we ask is a chance to free ourselves. We look to the United States to give us that chance."

To that end, Mr. Chalabi asked America to establish no-fly, no-drive areas in the north and south of Iraq, from which an INC provisional government could operate without being attacked by Saddam's tanks or helicopters. Mr. Chalabi proposed that oil sales from the liberated areas pay for arms and supplies needed to carry forward the war against Saddam.

One of the most vocal advocates of the INC option, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Richard Perle, said the Clinton administration was considering working with the group once again. It was on American assurances that the INC launched a previous effort against Saddam that ended with 400 Russian T-72 tanks rolling in to crush the rebellion.

"They [in the Clinton-Gore administration] face the prospect of having to go into the next election with a monumental failure to defend, and they are actively looking at alternatives," Mr. Perle said. That Mr. Chalabi was the star witness of the hearing, Mr. Perle said, "is significant progress and represents a recognition that the current policy cannot succeed."

Mr. Perle played his own role in pushing for the policy shift. In late January, he and other foreign policy experts penned a letter about Iraq under the auspices of the Project for the New American Century. That caught the eye of Mr. Lott. Then, in mid-February, Mr. Perle flew with Senator Lieberman, Mr. McCain and others to attend the Wehrkunde Security Conference at Munich. He used the plane ride and the conference to buttonhole the senators about the INC.

A former director of central intelligence, James Woolsey, has been another vocal proponent of helping the INC depose Saddam. "It would be wise to recognize a government in exile," Mr. Woolsey said, testifying at the hearing. "The INC seems to be the best option."

During the hearing, Senator Robb, a Democrat from Virginia, asked Mr. Chalabi about what "assurances at the highest level" his group received from the American government. "Did you mean the president?" Mr. Robb asked. "No," Mr. Chalabi replied. "The vice president did so in a letter dated August 1993." Mr. Chalabi turned a copy of the letter in to the committee after the hearing.

Mr. Robb also asked Mr. Chalabi about the details of a bank Mr. Chalabi ran in Jordan, a venture that ended when Saddam's Jordanian allies forced Mr. Chalabi from the bank in 1989.

An opponent of the INC, Brookings Institute analyst Richard Haass, also testified at the hearing. He warned that ousting Saddam could lead to a region-wide war, with Syria, Iran and Turkey all vying for pieces of Iraq. He added that emboldened Kurds could intensify a war against Turkey in an effort to establish an independent Kurdistan.

Mr. Haass made two counter-proposals he said could help deter Saddam, which amounted to getting tougher on Israel and easier on Iran. "We need a more energetic policy with regard to the peace process," he said. "There is linkage here, and we need to think of a more nuanced policy with regard to Iran."

Allies of Chalabi Meet Ambassador Gold, Warn of White House Folly

WASHINGTON - With Senate Majority Leader Lott pushing for $10 million in new funding for the Iraqi opposition, supporters of the free, democratic Iraqi National Congress are calling upon Israel and members of the American Jewish community to get behind their quest to depose Saddam Hussein.

An adviser to INC chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.

Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein. In international terms, pro-Israel, pro-INC policy analysts envision a Middle East where Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the liberated portion of Iraq confront the dictatorial, anti-Western nations of Iran and Syria.

The Clinton administration, however, is renewing relations with a Kurdish leader, Massoud Barzani, who once allied himself with Saddam Hussein to spite a rival. Congressional sources said Senator Lott was attempting to obtain $10 million in new funding for Iraqi opposition groups; Congress authorized $10 million in anti-Saddam Hussein funding last Spring.

"I went to speak to [Ambassador Gold] just to say that I think it's in Israel's best interest to help the Iraqi people get this thing done," Mr. Brooke said. "The basic case I made was that we need help here in the U.S. to get this thing going."

For his part, Mr. Gold said Israel had no current plans to ally itself with the INC. "We're always interested in hearing impressions from people around the region, and Middle Easterners from many countries are always willing to share their perspective with us," Mr. Gold said.

A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. "Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support," said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

With regard to the American Jewish community, Mr. Perle said: "There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Wurmser said an INC-controlled region in the north of Iraq is the missing piece to complete an anti-Syria, anti-Iran block. "If Ahmad extends a no-fly, no-drive in northern Iraq, it puts scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," Mr. Wurmser said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition."

Mr. Wursmer also cited a July 1997 speech where the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, called for a Syrian-Iraqi alliance to form an anti-Israel "Eastern front."

Mr. Chalabi attended an American Enterprise Institute conference with Messrs. Gold, Wurmser, Perle and Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan in Turkey several months ago. Mr. Chalabi also attended a June AEI event in Beaver Creek, Colorado, where he met President Ford and others.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, P.J. Crowley, defended the administration's desire to work with Mr. Barzani. "We want to prevent repetition of the way Saddam has divided and suppressed the Kurds," Mr. Crowley said. "Bringing them here is the best way to keep them working in ways which support our national interest."

"This is a problem. Barzani's working with Saddam. They just cannot engage in these internal Iraqi politics cleverly," Mr. Wurmser said.

Many Jewish groups hesitated to give their public support to the INC. The executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, said, "It's a very sensitive and serious issue - the internal politics of this are very serious."

An official at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who declined to be named, would only say, "It is not a matter we have a policy about."

The executive director of the National Jewish Coalition, a group of Jewish Republicans, Matt Brooks, said, "I have not studied that."

The executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Tom Neumann, however, praised the opposition group. "It is a good idea for the American Jewish community to do anything it can to change the government of Iraq," Mr. Neumann said. "We can't dream of military coups, what we can dream of is the INC."

Hello there!

Guess what?

?

"The objective of this lesson is for you to comprehend Psychological Operations and how they may be employed to influence an adversary's behaviour.

At the end of the lesson you'll be able to define 'PsyOp' as well as explain it's different categories and types.

You'll be able to identify the tools used to conduct PsyOps, and you will be able to explain the principles and objectives of PsyOps.

Finally, you'll be able to explain how PsyOps has been used in past military operations."

'Allah Akhbar' Echoes in Times Square While Brownback Meets Chalabi

Foes of Saddam Tell Congress: 'Give Us the Tools'

Allies of Chalabi Meet Ambassador Gold, Warn of White House Folly