Arab Rejectionism of UN Resolutions and the Fiction of a "Palestinian Right of Return"
The Case of UNGA Resolution 194 (1948)
In My Israel Question, Antony Loewenstein asks “Why do we constantly hear about Israel’s need for ‘security’ as though that justifies erecting walls, checkpoints and barricades?”[1] Why have you raised ‘security’ in the previous sentence, and why the ‘scare quotes’ around ‘security?’ Of course to those of us who have actually read Robert Fisk’s The Great War for Civilisation, AL’s plagiarism is once more transparent. Fisk asks
Israel’s ‘security’ - or supposed lack thereof - became the yardstick for all negotiations, all military threats and all wars. The injustice done to the Palestinians, the dispossession, the massacres…the occupation…and the bloody suppression of any…Palestinian resistance: all this had to take second place to Israel’s security.[2]
Perhaps Norman Finkelstein will wrote his next book exposing the Loewenstein-theft of Fisk as he did in his book on Dershowitz and Peters? Or perhaps, like Peters herself, Fisk will not be miffed at all by AL’s plagiarism?
Let us quickly revise some of the Israeli security concerns. They started the day the state of Israel was formed. The first occurred after Israel, Egypt, and Transjordan signed a cease-fire in March 1949 and the admission of the state of Israel to the United Nations two months later on 11 May 1949. While Israeli soldiers had succeeded in occupying twenty percent more of British Mandated Palestine than the United Nations 1947 partition, Israel insisted on a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab states. The Arab states refused and so Israel refused to return to the 1947 borders, and would not permit Arab refugees to return to their homes in Israel. For their part the Arab states refused diplomatic recognition of Israel. AL ramps up his anti Israel-security riff later by fuming
A 1987 UNGA resolution, opposed by Israel and the USA, provided insight into the ongoing ability of the Jewish state to conduct itself without rebuke, and with continued support, in the occupied territories…The resolution condemned ‘terrorism wherever and by whomever committed’, noting that peoples under ‘colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation’ have the right ‘to struggle’ for self-determination, freedom and independence.’[3] (emphasis added).
AL never informs whence this ‘right’ springs, nor why this "right" seems to apply only to those under ’colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation.’ Does that mean for the “right to struggle” the oppressed have the burden of proof that the alleged oppressors are ’colonial and racist regimes?’ Dear reader, we may never know as AL has not told us what this alleged Resolution was called or from where he sourced it.
To understand why, by 1987, Israel, or indeed any member of the United Nations, might not give a fig what UNGA Resolutions say, we need to go back to the 1940s. Of course, notions of international law and particularly UN Resolutions pepper AL’s ‘Israel Question.’ Ah yes, the UN General Assembly. In this phase of U.S. involvement in the Palestinian refugee issue the central institutional authority was the United Nations. In fact, in the early years the U.S. tried to be as even-handed, and even not involved, in the refugee issue.[4]
The armistice agreement following the 1948 War based on UN Resolutions 194 set the parameters for the next 18 years. However 194 did not resolve issues of water-sharing among the parties nor the return of the refugees. The U.S., Britain and France, worried about their future influence and strategic interests in the region, sought to limit further conflict through a Tripartate Agreement that limited the sales of arms to either side.
The armistice agreement following the 1948 War based on UN Resolutions 194 set the parameters for the next 18 years. However 194 did not resolve issues of water-sharing among the parties nor the return of the refugees. The U.S., Britain and France, worried about their future influence and strategic interests in the region, sought to limit further conflict through a Tripartate Agreement that limited the sales of arms to either side.
In this phase there was no official recognition of the unique identity of the Palestinians, even by the Arab world itself.[5] There was not even a Security Council Resolution. General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 called upon the Arab states and Israel to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations either directly, or with the help of the Palestine Conciliation Commission established by this resolution. Furthermore, Point 11 resolves:
that 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 that compensation should be paid for 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 Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation... (emphasis added).…[6]
The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN was not satisfied that the cease-fire "borders" were sufficient, and that some of the refugees would have to be resettled like refugees in any conflict. Thus claims that Resolution 194 provides a universal "right of return" are wrong, especially as they ignore the similar number of Jewish refugees from the surrounding Arab and wider Muslim world. Thus, the refugee issue was but one of many to be negotiated.
that 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 that compensation should be paid for 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 Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation... (emphasis added).…[6]
The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN was not satisfied that the cease-fire "borders" were sufficient, and that some of the refugees would have to be resettled like refugees in any conflict. Thus claims that Resolution 194 provides a universal "right of return" are wrong, especially as they ignore the similar number of Jewish refugees from the surrounding Arab and wider Muslim world. Thus, the refugee issue was but one of many to be negotiated.
The Arabs, however, started a pattern that continued to thwart them for decades. THey simply refused to compromise or negotiate.
As Hanan Ashrawi so tragically admitted
the rejection of the 1947 UN partition plan as “with the benefit of immaculate hindsight the worst plunder we made was not accepting the 1947 UN petition.
Thus the Arabs once more unanimously rejected the UN resolution. The General Assembly voted, on November 19, 1948 to establish the United Nations Relief For Palestinian Refugees (UNRPR) to dispense aid to the refugees. The UNRPR was replaced by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) on December 8, 1949, and given a budget of $50 million. However all this is moot as the Resolution was never a legal resolution bestowing “rights” on anybody.
Palestinians have always cited 194 as their “right” of return.[7] Putting aside the fact that 194 does not mention the word “right,” or “Palestinians,” unlike Chapter Six and Seven Resolutions of the Security Council, Chapter Four Resolutions of the UN General Assembly were never designed to have the force of law. The UNGA is empowered to refer to the Security Council, matters it thinks require a judicial decision; no such referral was ever made regarding 194. And even if it were, among other criticisms, the Israelis have always maintained that the refugees do not want “to live in peace with their neighbours.”[8] And just quietly, I defy anybody to provide evidence to the contrary!
It is true that from 1948 until the late 1970s the United States never accorded the Palestinians themselves any diplomatic status. Truman’s Secretary of State, John Dulles, made it clear that, for the U.S., the legitimate negotiating party was the Arab states: not the refugees themselves. In December, 1948 Dulles was emphatic that Israel‘s establishment was an “historical inevitability“ that would inevitably
Involved certain injustices to the Arab States. The situation was not one where there was any solution that was totally just to all concerned…Nevertheless, there had to be a solution and, we believed, a peaceful solution…Therefore our [policy] could be looked upon…as completing one phase of a historical development which, when completed, would permit of better relations than ever before with the Arab States.[9] (emphasis added)
However, neither the Arab states nor Arab lobby/political groups thought that the refugees were a distinct entity to bargain on behalf of either. On the other hand, the Palestinian’s belief in their “right” of return has over time evolved to transcend strict legalistic interpretations of “rights.”[10] One of the top handful of misdirections taken by the Palestinians are those western advocates who have expended so much puff and wind telling the refugees they have a “right of return.”[11]
Palestinians have always cited 194 as their “right” of return.[7] Putting aside the fact that 194 does not mention the word “right,” or “Palestinians,” unlike Chapter Six and Seven Resolutions of the Security Council, Chapter Four Resolutions of the UN General Assembly were never designed to have the force of law. The UNGA is empowered to refer to the Security Council, matters it thinks require a judicial decision; no such referral was ever made regarding 194. And even if it were, among other criticisms, the Israelis have always maintained that the refugees do not want “to live in peace with their neighbours.”[8] And just quietly, I defy anybody to provide evidence to the contrary!
It is true that from 1948 until the late 1970s the United States never accorded the Palestinians themselves any diplomatic status. Truman’s Secretary of State, John Dulles, made it clear that, for the U.S., the legitimate negotiating party was the Arab states: not the refugees themselves. In December, 1948 Dulles was emphatic that Israel‘s establishment was an “historical inevitability“ that would inevitably
Involved certain injustices to the Arab States. The situation was not one where there was any solution that was totally just to all concerned…Nevertheless, there had to be a solution and, we believed, a peaceful solution…Therefore our [policy] could be looked upon…as completing one phase of a historical development which, when completed, would permit of better relations than ever before with the Arab States.[9] (emphasis added)
However, neither the Arab states nor Arab lobby/political groups thought that the refugees were a distinct entity to bargain on behalf of either. On the other hand, the Palestinian’s belief in their “right” of return has over time evolved to transcend strict legalistic interpretations of “rights.”[10] One of the top handful of misdirections taken by the Palestinians are those western advocates who have expended so much puff and wind telling the refugees they have a “right of return.”[11]
Coming Up: UNSC Resolution 242 has nothing to do with the Palestinians.
[1] AL p.xi
[2] Fisk , R. The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East Harper Collins: London 2005 p.463
[3] AL p.89
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Shavit Uriya and Bana Jalal “Everything you wanted to know about the right of return but were afraid to ask.” Ha’aretz 6/7/2001.
[9] U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS): 1948, Vol.V (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1976), 13 December 1948, pp. 1660-61, emphasis added. Quoted in Christison, K., “Bound by a Frame of Reference, Part II: U.S. Policy and the Palestinians, 1948-88” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 27, No.3 (Spring, 1998), p.20
[10]
[11] Include Said and two others
No comments:
Post a Comment