‘Recognition of the refugees’ rights is critical for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. It is a core issue that should not be left until final stage negotiations’ (Bell, 2011, p. 10).
Palestinian refugees count more than 5 million, a number which is considered as one of the world’s largest refugee populations of the contemporary history (Bell, 2011, p. 6). According to Dajani (2001, p. 1), the main reasons for the Palestinians displacement throughout the Middle East, and the “creation of the modern world’s most enduring refugee problem” are: (1) the humanitarian crisis resulting from the shattering of Palestinian communities all over Palestine, (2) the denial of their right for a shared national consciousness through the ‘al-Nakba’ of 1948, and (3) the cre- ation of the state of Israel on 78.0% of the territory of the Palestine Mandate of 1922 (Christian Aid, 2007, p. 5). Still, the Israelis refuse to acknowledge responsibility for the creation of the refugees problem, and maintain instead that the displacement of Palestinians was solely a by-product of conflict launched by the Arab world in 1948 rather than a deliberate policy of expulsion (Bell, 2011, p .8; Chow et al.,
2008, p .14).
Clearly, both parties’ narratives regarding this issue are entirely different and incoherent. The Palestinians claim the right of all refugees and their descendants to return to their homes in Israel proper and are entitled to compensation. This same right sorely contradicts and threatens the very definition of the Israeli state; a state with a Jewish majority. Israel’s concern is that the sudden influx of several million refugees would tip the scales in favor of Arab inhabitants in Israel, and eventually threaten the state’s Jewish character, and cause Israel’s Jewish population to become a minority (Chao, 2011, p. 12; Chow et al., 2008, p. 14). Therefore, for the Israelis, the refugees issue is viewed as a “transparent attempt to quash Jewish self-determination” (Dyszy, 2011, p. 10).
As a first step to resolving this core issue, the notion that it is a robust obstacle to the peace process must be altered. It is not possible to reach a solution, when what is considered a non-negotiable right on the one side, is regarded as a fatal de- mographic threat on the other side. The right of return does not indicate the right of every refugee (and their descendants) to go back to their exact place of origin. After all, Israel cannot absorb more than 5 million Palestinians and still be a ma- jority Jewish state (Stein, 2002, p. 10; Christian Aid, 2007, p. 5). Add thereto, for Israelis, refugees do not have the right to transmit this status to their offsprings, and hence, they do not have any right to come back to their ancestral lands. The Pales- tinians require the Israelis “to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the plight of the refugees as a critical step, before any forms of restitution, resettlement or compensation can be addressed, and the conflict moves towards resolution” (Bell, 2011, p. 14). On the other hand, the Israeli “security concerns and questions about the right of return are understandable and must be squarely addressed” (Ibid, p. 10).
This dissertation investigated further suggested solutions to the conflict and how Palestinians and Israelis perceived them. Chow et al. (2008, p. 14) outlined some suggestions for a peace settlement that will be gauged in later stages of this disser- tation. In Chow et al. (2008) opinion, it is critical to offer the refugees a set of op- tions that might normalize their status, in which compensation is an alternate choice that should accompany each option. These options include the right of Palestinian refugees “to return to a future Palestinian state, return to a swapped territory, limited return to Israel, resettlement in third countries, or rehabilitation in host countries”. That is not limited only to Palestinian refugees but to Jewish refugees from Arab states as well. The return should not be on a large scale, and should abide by spe- cific criteria and rules. In other words, they should consider the small size of the land (whether the newly established Palestinian state or Israel), and its economic ability to absorb more people. The feasibility of such suggestions is still to be tested.
political limbo in their host countries for decades” (Dyszy, 2011, p. 10). Bell (2011, p. 16) described the living standards and the legal, political and socio-economic discrimination refugees are frequently suffering from:
‘There is no such thing as a typical day in the life of a Palestinian refugee. Their experience depends on factors such as what identity papers and permits they hold and the attitude of the people and government of the host country towards them. But the common bond that they all share is the insecurity of statelessness and the sense of loss and the longing for a homeland that could promote and protect their identity as Palestinians: an identity that continues to be challenged and threatened’.
For example, Palestinian refugees were considered non-citizens in Syria, were fac- ing numerous employment restrictions and were banned from owning properties in Lebanon, and were always under the threat of deportation or expulsion. In addi- tion to the “lack of mechanisms for the protection of human rights that are usually ensured by the state, is their vulnerability to rights violations either by host coun- tries or hostile entities” (Ibid, p. 13). For Palestinians, the end of the conflict starts with the eradication of discrimination and injustice forcibly applied to displaced refugees; sufferings they experience on a daily basis. For the Israelis, the applica- tion of such process should guarantee the persistence of Israel as a secure state for Jewish people. These two positions although hard to maintain combined, but still, a viable solution that complements both sides and secure a “future for both peoples, a future that respects the right of all to live in peace with security, economic pros- perity and equity” is possible (Ibid, p. 5). Scham et al. (2013) believed that when ‘a mutually acceptable statement of shared responsibility for the events of 1948 is pro- claimed by the respective Palestinian and Israeli governments, the healing process, a real process of moving forward, can begin’.