Alternative Palestinian Agenda

APA Home

Member Contributions

 

Right of Return

The displacement of the Palestinian civil population from their homes and the seizure of their properties represent the origin of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In the aftermath of the 1948 war, which is referred to by the Palestinians as An-Nakba (the Catastrophe) and by the Israelis as the War of Independence, over 800,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes in Palestine (what became Israel) and into the neighboring countries. In the depopulation process and to prevent the return of the displaced Palestinian population, Israelis destroyed 418 Palestinian villages in the territories that fell under their control and depopulated 11 Palestinian cities and took them for their own use. This ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinian population continued in various forms throughout the history of the state of Israel.

Simple examination of the history of the conflict shows that the exiled segment of Palestinian population has been the most active in directing hostility toward Israel and Israelis, whether through border operations or driving their hosting country into war with Israel. The second most active segment in expressing resistance toward Israel is the Palestinian population under military occupation in the West Bank and, in particular, the Gaza Strip due to the high concentration of Palestinian refugees there. The segment of the Palestinians that directs the least actions against Israel is the segment that was never exiled, the Palestinians that remained in what is now Israel.

Leaving the issue of the exiled Palestinian population unresolved does not bring security to the Israelis; on the contrary, it only brings continuous security threats. Furthermore, one of the main concerns of the Israelis is to be accepted in the region. Failure to address the issue of the Palestinian refugees prevents the Israelis from achieving acceptance since it represents the main reason the peoples of the region still reject Israel and Israelis.

 

Israelis continue to insist on denying the Palestinian Right of Return for several reasons. First they claim that allowing for this right would represent an Israeli national suicide, arguing that the return of the exiled Palestinian population would demographically threaten the character of the state of Israel. Some Israelis mistakenly fear that the return of the exiled Palestinians would mean the displacement of the Israelis. Still others object to the Palestinians’ Right of Return in order to avoid having to return Palestinian properties and share the land.

Addressing the Palestinian Right of Return is the most complex and challenging to accommodate in a solution, but there can be no solution that ignores this issue. Consequently, addressing the Palestinian Right of Return represents a major component of the Alternative Configuration presented here. Given the magnitude of this issue, the implementation of the Right of Return is discussed separately.

The current Palestinian population distribution today is shown in Graph 1. The majority of the Palestinians today live in exile. Over 3.7 million of the displaced Palestinian population is registered as refugees. Map 16 shows the distribution of the refugee population in Palestine and the surrounding countries.

(INSERT GRAPH 1 – Palestinian Population Distribution)

(INSERT MAP 16 – Palestinian Refugee Distribution)

A great number of the refugees continue to live in refugee camps to this day since 1948 in a perpetual state of unemployment, poverty, and deprivation. Denied the basic elements of life this refugee population sees their future in the context of their return. If there is to be a resolution to this conflict, the issue of the Palestinian Right of Return and restitution of the exiled Palestinians’ properties must be addressed and brought to a satisfactory resolution.

 

The feasibility of the Palestinian return is real and not merely a slogan. As shown in the territorial configuration, there is room to accommodate a great number of returnees with little interference with the lives of established communities. Personal survey of the Palestinian towns such as Akka, Haifa, Safed, Tabaria, Bissan, al Lyd, and al Ramla show that there are Palestinian homes that are still vacant and can be renovated and reoccupied by their owners or other returnees. There are many destroyed village sites that are not utilized by anyone that can be rebuilt. Under this proposal the sites of 62 destroyed villages would fall under Palestinian sovereignty and could be redeveloped to resettle Palestinian returnees. Also the Southwestern Region proposed to be allocated to the Palestinian state is mostly vacant, a large number of farming communities can be reestablished there allowing for the rehabilitation of many of the exiled Palestinian population in the Gaza area refugee camps.

The following measures are proposed to accommodate the Palestinian right of return:

1. Exiled Palestinians are those who:

1. Were forced out of their homes by the ravages of war and were not allowed to return after the war
2. Were expelled from their homes by the Jewish militias or the Israeli army
3. Fled their homes due to the threat of war and were not allowed to return after the war
4. Were out of the country before the war and were not allowed to return after the war
5. Were denied to continue to maintain residence in their homes under the Israeli occupation through direct deportations or barring their return by various measures

 

2. Every exiled Palestinian or the descendants thereof should have the choice to return to Palestine or receive compensation for their properties and losses if they choose to stay in their current location as long as they are accepted by the hosting countries in which they reside.

3. Returning Palestinians should reclaim their own properties where possible or be substituted with a similar property at the nearest location to their place of origin where resettlement is feasible.

4. The major bulk of the returnees is proposed to be accommodated in the proposed Palestinian state through both urban and rural rehabilitation.

1. Re-establishment of rural communities by rebuilding destroyed villages that fall under the boundaries of the Palestinian state (62 villages)
2. Establishment of new farming communities in the southwestern region that fall under the Palestinian state to resettle some of the exiled Palestinians in the Gaza area there
3. Re-establishment of residents of the bulk of returnees from major urban areas in the Palestinian towns that fall under the Palestinian state (Jaffa, Akka, al Lyd, and al Ramla).

5. A segment of the returnee population is proposed to be accommodated in Palestinian cities that are currently inhabited by Israelis after their depopulation from their Palestinian inhabitants in 1948 and would fall under Israeli sovereignty according to this proposal. This proposal includes the re-establishment of Palestinian residents in the cities of Haifa, Tabaria, Bisan, and Bir es Saba’.

6. Should former residents of the Palestinian destroyed villages that would fall under Israeli sovereignty (355 sites) or their descendents have a desire to reestablish residence in their village and the redevelopment on the site is feasible, such redevelopment should not be denied, given that such residents would fall under Israeli jurisdiction.

7. The partition of the country into two different states and two different jurisdictions does not deny individuals (or their descendants) their rights to their private property if it falls under the other state.

8. Compensation for loss of properties and income shall be made available for the exiled Palestinians by parties that are found responsible for their plight satisfactory to paragraph 11, in the UNGA Resolution 194, December 1948, which "resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date, and 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."

Implementing the Right of Return

 

I begin my analysis with the capacity of the new territorial configuration to accommodate the implementation of the Palestinian right of return. My intention is to estimate the number of Palestinian returnees that can be expected to exercise their right of return. To that end, I will examine the exiled Palestinian population. Then I provide an analysis of the proposed territorial configuration’s capacity to accommodate these numbers by distributing them to the proposed territories area by area.

Returnee Estimates

Once the right of return is granted, many Palestinians may choose to exercise it as an expression of identity. However, those who will actually return and establish permanent residence in Palestine and build new lives there will not amount to the whole exiled Palestinian population spread around the world. A filtration process must be applied to draw an estimate of the number of Palestinians that would be expected to return and establish a permanent residence in Palestine. I have broken down the exiled population into two major categories: those living in refugee camps and those not living in refugee camps. Of those not living in camps, I discuss them by location given the different living conditions and geographic proximity to Palestine. These locations include the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt.

Table 23 shows the distribution of the refugee population in Palestine and the neighboring countries and the population that currently lives in refugee camps.

Table 23. Distribution of the Palestinian Refugee Population in Thousands

Source: Atlas of Palestine, Applied Research Institute, Jerusalem, (2000).

Refugees Currently Living in Camps

A permanent resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must end the refugee status of the Palestinian refugee population and let go of the fifty year old camps of poverty and deprivation, the mere existence of which is a source instability. Thus the entire population in the refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, which totals 1,013,000 returnees, would be expected to seek alternative living arrangements and actually exercise their right to return.

Refugees Not Currently Living in Camps

The percentage of people who are expected to exercise the Right of Return from this population is difficult to estimate and will vary based on current living conditions and level of assimilation and acceptance in the hosting countries. This population is discussed by geographic location below.

The West Bank and Gaza. This segment of the population has managed through the past decades to make their way out of the camps. As of 1998, this segment of refugees numbered 460,000 in the Gaza Strip and 440,000 in the West Bank. Although they are no longer living in refugee camps, this population is still disadvantaged in comparison to the rest of the population in these areas. They do not own property unless they managed to purchase it and thus do not have the option to offer their children lands to build houses as their families grow.

From those refugees in the Gaza Strip, 70% or 322,000 refugees are expected to seek alternative living arrangements and actually exercise the right of return. A smaller percentage of refugees in the West Bank may elect to exercise the right of return since the living conditions there are more favorable and thus may not exceed 50% or 220,000 refugees. The remaining 30% of the refugees in Gaza and 50% in the West Bank are expected to maintain their current living arrangement and seek compensation for their refugee status and loss of property. Therefore, the total refugee population not living in camps that is expected to return is estimated at 542,000.

Jordan. There are currently 1,180,000 Palestinian refugees in Jordan that are not living in refugee camps. Even though this segment of the refugee population made their way out of the camps, the living conditions in Jordan are still very poor in most of the urban areas where they are concentrated. Those who are struggling are expected to seek alternative living arrangements in Palestine, which amounts to roughly 30% or 354,000 refugees of this segment of the refugee population. The remaining 70% may elect to seek compensation for their refugee status and loss of property and maintain their current living arrangement.

Lebanon. There are currently 160,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon that are not living in refugee camps. Given the difficult status these refugees experience in Lebanon with respect to employment opportunities, at least 50% or 80,000 refugees of this segment of the population are expected to exercise their right of return and reestablish their lives in Palestine.

Syria. There are 260,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria that are not living in refugee camps. This population is fairly well established economically. Although they retain their refugee status and are not citizens of Syria, they enjoy a comparable standard of living with Syrians. Nevertheless, 30% or 78,000 refugees of this population is expected to exercise the right of return.

Egypt. There are 40,000 Palestinian refugees in Egypt that are not living in refugee camps (there are no refugee camps in Egypt). This segment of the refugee population is also well established and the returnees from this population may not exceed 20% or 8,000 refugees.

The total refugee population that is currently not living in refugee camps that is expected to return is 1,062,000 refugees. Thus, the total refugee population that is expected to exercise the right of return amounts to 2,075,000 refugees. A small fraction of the Palestinian communities in the rest of the Arab countries, Europe, and North America may elect to return. Although most members of these communities will demand accessibility to Palestine, few of them will actually resettle there.

Returnee Distribution

Now that we know that there are over two million refugees that would most likely exercise their right of return and would need to be accommodated in Palestine, we can examine how this population can be distributed throughout the Palestinian areas according to the proposed configuration. This will be discussed area by area in two categories: accommodation of returnees in rural areas and urban areas.

Returnees in Rural Areas

All the destroyed village sites that are located in the areas that fall under Palestinian sovereignty as outlined in this proposal are proposed to be redeveloped. The number of people to be accommodated in each of these villages is proposed to be based on the projected population of that same village today had it continued to exist and was not demolished.

To project what the population of these villages would have been today had these villages not been destroyed, an indexing process is shown in Table 24 below to determine the average growth ratio by comparing the populations of twelve surviving Palestinian villages in what is now Israel to their population as of 1945, the last recorded census available for both destroyed and surviving villages.

Table 24. Increase of Population in Select Palestinian Villages Indexing

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities, Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998; al Dabbagh, Mustafa. (1973). Biladuna Filastin, Vol.1. Beirut: Dar at-tali’a.

The average increase in population for these Palestinian villages is 896% between 1945 and 1999 over a period of 44 years. This ratio will be used as a guiding principle in determining the proposed population to accommodate on these sites. Once the Palestinian returnees have been accommodated on these sites based on this principle, the final demographic distribution in these areas will reflect the natural population density had these villages never been destroyed.

Other rural areas that can sustain a high population density that currently have a lower population density and were previously not heavily populated are proposed to be utilized to accommodate Palestinian returnees based on the level of population sustainability. What follows is a detailed breakdown of where and how many refugees can be accommodated in each region.

al Jalil (The Galilee)

All of the destroyed village sites in al Jalil shown in Table 25 that would fall under Palestinian sovereignty are proposed to be redeveloped. Table 25 below lists these villages, their populations as of 1945, and the number of returnees proposed to be accommodated in each village based on the indexing principle discussed above.

 

Table 25. Palestinian destroyed villages proposed to be redeveloped in the al Jalil District

The total returnee population that would be accommodated in these villages is 199,700. In addition to the rural population in al Jalil, the city of Akka (Acre), which also falls under this region, currently has a Palestinian population of 15,000 and has Palestinian homes and buildings that still stand vacant. These homes and buildings can be renovated as well as new housing units erected there to accommodate a proposed 100,000 returnees to the city of Akka. Thus the total returnee population proposed to be accommodated in the al Jalil region is 300,000.

District of Tabaria (Tiberias District)

All of the destroyed village sites in this area that would fall under Palestinian sovereignty are shown in Table 26 and are proposed to be redeveloped. Table 26 below lists these villages, their populations as of 1945, and the number of returnees proposed to be accommodated in each village based on the indexing principle discussed above.

Table 26. Palestinian destroyed villages proposed to be redeveloped in the District of Tabaria

All of the destroyed village sites in this area that would fall under Palestinian sovereignty are shown in Table 27 and are proposed to be redeveloped. Table 27 below lists these villages, their populations as of 1945, and the number of returnees proposed to be accommodated in each village based on the indexing principle discussed above.

Table 27. Palestinian destroyed villages proposed to be redeveloped in the Bisan Plateau

 

Marj ibin Amer (Izre’el Plateau)

The areas that are proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty currently contain 11 Israeli towns that are lightly populated with a total population of 2,996. However, the western part of the plains that is proposed to fall under Israeli sovereignty only contains two Israeli towns. All of the Israeli farmers in the plains are leasing the lands and homes from the state of Israel. An option is suggested here, though not to be imposed, to establish similar size towns in the western part of the plains that fall under Israeli sovereignty and give the Israeli population there the option to move to these neighboring towns and stay under Israeli sovereignty. This would allow these towns in the southern part of the Marj ibn Amer Plains, which are naturally connected to the Jenin area, to be utilized to accommodate Palestinian returnees. The average size of a Palestinian village in this region is 1,500 people. If similar numbers were accommodated in each of the 11 towns, this would create room for 16,500 returnees. This population would become part of the Jenin area. Most of the lands in this area were originally owned by the residents of the Palestinian villages north and west of Jenin. Compensation should be proposed to the original owners of these lands so they can be utilized by the new returnees.

Upper Triangle

The area of the upper triangle that is proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty is heavily populated. Thus, no returnees other than those who originally came from there are proposed to be resettled. These include the sites of the two destroyed villages, which are proposed to be redeveloped.

Table 28 lists these villages with their population in 1945 and the number of returnees proposed to be accommodated according to the indexing principle.

Table 28. Palestinian destroyed villages proposed to be redeveloped in the Upper Triangle

 

Canada Park

This district is the southeastern corner of the al Ramla district currently in the West Bank and contains the sites of five destroyed Palestinian villages that are proposed to be redeveloped. Table 29 lists these villages and the population proposed to be accommodated there.

Table 29. Palestinian destroyed villages proposed to be redeveloped in Canada Park

 

Jerusalem

As discussed previously under the section on Jerusalem, people who were expelled from the District of Jerusalem should have the right to return and reestablish residence in the district. The villages that were destroyed in this district are proposed to be redeveloped and are listed in Table 30 and the population proposed to be accommodated there.

Table 30. Palestinian destroyed villages proposed to be redeveloped in the District of Jerusalem

The destroyed village Eshaikh Baber is also located in this district. However, the site has been swallowed up by the urban growth of West Jerusalem and it is not feasible to redevelop the village today. The descendents of this village may be accommodated in the other villages of the district or the city of Jerusalem itself.

The Southwestern Region

The Southwestern Region that is proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty constitutes the area between Bir es Saba’ and the Gaza Strip and is approximately 650km2. This area currently contains only six Israeli towns with a total population of 1,974 people and a population density of 3/km2. This area is about four times larger than the Gaza Strip, which is populated by 1.2 million with a population density of 3,000/km2.

This region is considered in two parts, Area I just southeast of the Gaza Strip connecting to Bir es Saba’ and Area II southwest of Bir es Saba’. Area I is very fertile and allows for the establishment of farming communities to accommodate Palestinian returnees. Thus, this area can sustain a substantially high population density. It also naturally links to the urban population of Gaza. This linkage makes the presence of a large rural population economically viable. The establishment of new Palestinian farming communities is proposed to a level that would bring the population density to 1000/km2. This area is approximately 350 km2, which would accommodate 350,000 returnees.

Area II of this region southwest of Bir es Saba is vacant, but not as fertile. New Palestinian villages are proposed to be developed in this area which would bring the population density to a level of 400/km2. This area is approximately 300 km2 which would allow for an additional 120,000 returnees. In order to link this population in Area II to an urban area, which is naturally connected to the city of Bir es Saba’, and since the city is vastly populated by Israelis today after the depopulation of its Palestinian inhabitants in1948, the accommodation of 50,000 Palestinian returnees is proposed in the city of Bir es Saba’. This returnee population in the city of Bir Es Saba’ would constitute a bridge between the Palestinian rural population around the city and the urban population in the city, even though the city itself is proposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty. The total proposed accommodation of returnees in the southwestern region would be 470,000 rural and 50,000 urban residents.

The Southeastern Region

The Southeastern Region that is proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty constitutes the area between Bir Es Saba’ and the Dead Sea connects to the West Bank and is approximately 550 km2. Roughly 30,000 Palestinians and 2,000 Israelis currently live in this area with an average population density of 50/km2. The destroyed village sites are proposed to be redeveloped in addition to the development of new villages there. The population density in this area can be increased to 400/km2. This area naturally connects to the cities of Bir es Saba’ and Hebron. This connection to two urban centers makes an increase in population density economically viable. Such a change in population density would accommodate 210,000 Palestinian returnees.

The West Bank

In addition to the area described under Canada Park, Palestinian returnees can be accommodated in the Jordan Valley, which has an area of 750 km2 and a population density of less than 20/km2, the majority of which are Israeli settlers. Since the valley is fairly rich in resources and represents a relatively large area, both urban and rural development is proposed. The valley is suitable for agriculture and contains large pieces of flat land, which would be ideal for industrial development. A substantial number of Palestinian returnees could be accommodated, increasing the population density to 500/km2.

The fact that the valley does not contain a major urban city may have contributed to the lack of the development of a large number of rural villages there. The valley was mainly utilized by Palestinian semi-nomadic tribes, most of which were expelled by Israel into Jordan. The accommodation of Palestinian returnees in the Jordan Valley is proposed to include the establishment of an urban city.

This proposal recommends a population of 200,000 and for the city to be located at the Jisr Damyeh intersection on Highway 90 (Adam Junction). The city should spread on both sides of Wadi al Fara’a (Tirsta Valley) from the Damyeh intersection northwest to Jiflic on Highway 57 and southward along the access road linking Highway 57 to Highway 90 through Masu’a.

This site is geographically suitable for a large urban city. The development of a city there will make the development of rural communities along the valley north and south of this site economically viable. The site is in the center of the valley and is approximately 30 km south of the northern border of the West Bank and approximately 30 km north of the city of Jericho.

The proposed city would be located 30 minutes from Jericho, 30 minutes from Nablus, 50 minutes from Ramallah, one hour from Jerusalem, 45 minutes from Jenin, and one hour from Amman, Jordan. This city can turn into a regional economic center given its close proximity to most of the major cities in the region. The area has ample supply of water and 30 km of fields to the north and 30 km of fields to the south. It is also in close proximity to recreational areas and a border crossing.

The repopulation of the Jordan Valley is proposed to bring the valley to a population density of 600/km2. This would give the opportunity to accommodate an additional 190,000 returnees along the valley in rural communities north and south of the proposed city.

The Gaza Strip

The demographic crisis in the Gaza Strip represents one of the outstanding issues in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The majority of the residents of the Palestinian villages South of Jaffa ended up in the Gaza area after the destruction of their villages in 1948. This led to a demographic crisis in the area that still exists to this day and is increasing in complexity Hence, what is proposed here is to take population out of the Gaza Strip and allow for their accommodation in the areas discussed.

The current population density of the Gaza Strip is 3000/km2. A total of 633,000 residents are proposed to be accommodated outside of the area, which would bring the population density in the Gaza Strip down to 1400/km2. This change would help relieve many of the security concerns by improving the living conditions of this population.

Returnees in Urban Areas

Not all Palestinian returnees will be capable of making a living in a rural setting and the presence of a Palestinian population in the cities will help bridge relationships between the Palestinian rural population and the majority of the Israeli urban population. Upon surveying urban areas, I found numerous Palestinian neighborhoods that are vacant that can be redeveloped in Haifa, Akka, Tabaria, Bisan, Jaffa, al Lyd, and al Ramla. There are numerous old Palestinian apartment buildings that are still standing in Haifa and vacant. These cities are central to Palestinian culture and history. Accommodating returnees in the major Palestinian cities will greatly contribute to the resolution of the conflict. If Palestinians continue to be barred from these cities they will remain a painful thorn in Palestinian memory and history that will threaten stability.

Returnees to cities that would fall under Palestinian sovereignty

The cities of Akka, Jaffa, al Lyd, and al Ramla all currently under Israeli control. All were included in the territories that were allotted to the Palestinian state under the UN Partition Plan, and all are proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty under this proposal. These cities continued to house Palestinian population throughout their control by Israel for over fifty years even though the majority of their residents were expelled.

These cities still have vacant Palestinian neighborhoods that can be utilized to accommodate Palestinian returnees and contribute to the solution. The number of proposed returnees to these cities is shown in Table 31. The number of returnees for each city was based on the size of the original Palestinian population of the city and the size of the vacant neighborhoods currently there.

Table 31. Proposed returnees to cities that would fall under Palestinian sovereignty

*Jewish immigrant population prior to the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine

**Jewish population was concentrated in the adjacent city of Tel Aviv

***Figure reflects the Israeli population of Tel Aviv including those living in Jaffa (separate figure for Jaffa not available)

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Israel, No. 50, Jerusalem 1999; al Dabbagh, Mustafa. (1973). Biladuna Filastin, Vol.1. Beirut: Dar at-tali’a.

Returnees to Cities that Would Fall under Israeli Sovereignty

The Palestinian cities of Haifa, Safad, Tabaria, and Bisan were included in the territories that was allocated to the Jewish state under the UN Partition Plan of 1947. They also would fall under Israeli sovereignty under this proposal. However these cities in violation of the UN partition resolution were depopulated from their Palestinian inhabitants in 1948 and their return continues to be denied by Israel.

Accommodating Palestinian returnees in these cities not only would address the historic violation against the Palestinian civil population, but would also contribute to facilitating the solution in practical ways.

In the case of the city of Haifa, the city was the most populous Palestinian city before 1948 and was the most integrated city then and remains the most integrated city today with a Palestinian population of 36,000. The city is in close proximity to the Palestinian rural population in the Galilee. Currently the city contains vacant Palestinian neighborhoods that can be redeveloped. The city also offers many job opportunities. The presence of a Palestinian community in the city makes the interaction between the Palestinian rural population of western Galilee and the Israeli residents of the city more viable. The Palestinian residents of Haifa would bridge the rural Palestinian population in western Galilee with the rest of the city’s population.

In the cases of the cities of Bisan, Tabaria, and Bir es Saba’ a number of Palestinian villages were proposed to be redeveloped around these cities in order to make life in these villages economically viable for their returnee population they need to be connected to urban center. Since these cities are currently inhabited by Israelis, the re-establishment of Palestinian residents in these cities is proposed to bridge the rural returnee population with the urban population of these cities. These cities Still have old Palestinian neighborhoods standing vacant that can be renovated and redeveloped.

In the case of the city of Safad, the city is completely inhabited by Israelis today and no major redevelopment of Palestinian villages around the city is proposed. Hence no large scale accommodation is proposed in the city of Safad even though it was heavily populated by Palestinian prior to 1948. However, Palestinian residents and descendants of the city wishing to return to their city to live there should be accommodated on individual bases.

The proposed number of returnees to the Palestinian cities that fall under Israeli sovereignty is shown in Table 32. The proposed numbers were based on the size of the rural community that would be bordering the city and the size of the existing vacant Palestinian neighborhoods in these cities.

 

Table 32. Proposed returnees to the cities that would fall under Israeli sovereignty

*Jewish immigrant population prior to the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine

**Currently the Israeli city of Ashqelon

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Israel, No. 50, Jerusalem 1999; al Dabbagh, Mustafa. (1973). Biladuna Filastin, Vol.1. Beirut: Dar at-tali’a.

The Overall Accommodation of Returnees

Tables 33 and 34 show the compiled figures by region broken down by rural and urban accommodation, respectively.

Table 33. Rural Returnees

 

 

Table 34. Urban Returnees

 

The total Palestinian returnee population that can be accommodated according to this reconfiguration is roughly 2 million returnees. This accommodation does not require any Israeli relocation. It affects the lives of 50,000 Israelis in rural areas only in terms of having more Palestinian neighbors and falling under Palestinian sovereignty. Most of this Israeli rural population is in the Galilee region, which is accustomed to Palestinian neighbors already. The increase of the population in the Palestinian neighborhoods in the cities will have little interference on the Israeli population there since such accommodation would be bridged by the existing Palestinian communities. This bridge of return will become the bridge for Israelis who look forward to becoming an integral part of the region in order to live in peace and harmony with the peoples of the Middle East.

Compensation

The purpose of this proposal is to provide a vision for a solution, not to serve justice. Some argue that justice can be served by compensating the displaced Palestinian population for their properties. As demonstrated the displacement is the origin and the main issue of the conflict. If compensation serves justice according to some legal definition, it would not provide for a solution. This conflict needs to be resolved for future generations to live in peace. Compensating today’s generation for their lost properties would not resolve future Palestinian generations quest for their rights to Palestine. Thus, compensation should be honored to compensate all displaced Palestinians for over 50 years of refugee status and for loss of properties for the same period. Those choosing not to return should receive additional compensation for their lost properties.

UN Resolution 194, December 1949, called for such compensation to be provided by parties found responsible. Point 11 of that resolution states "resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date, and 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."

Parties Responsible for the Catastrophe

There has been so much debate over who bears the responsibility for the Palestinian catastrophe. In what follows, the role of three parties that hold major responsibility in creating the Palestinian refugee problem and thus should be held responsible and should comply with the demands in Paragraph 11, Resolution 194. These parties are Israel, Britain, and the United Nations.

Israel

The state of Israel is the primary responsible party in creating the Catastrophe. After the UN Partition Plan was introduced in 1947, the Jewish militia, under the pretext of preemption of an imminent Arab invasion, waged war against the civilian population in Palestine with a bombing campaign against the Palestinian towns and villages that was aimed at depopulating them from their inhabitants. The Jewish militia took control over all the territories that were allocated to the Jewish state and nearly 50% of the territories that were allocated to the Arab state. In the process, the Israeli army, by order of the state, destroyed 418 villages out of the 522 Palestinian villages that fell under their control. Also the Jewish militia, which then became the army of the state of Israel, evacuated the inhabitants of 11 Palestinian cities and the state of Israel took the private and public properties in these cities for its own use.

Although United Nations Resolution 181 allocated territories from British mandate Palestine for the creation of the Jewish state, this allocation did not permit the Jewish state to seize the properties or displace the inhabitants of those territories. To the contrary, the resolution emphasized the protection of the current inhabitants’ well being and their properties. UNGA Resolution 181, November 29, 1947 (the Partition Plan resolution) states in section C, Chapter 2, point 8, "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish state (by a Jew in the Arab state) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the supreme court shall be paid previous to dispossession."

Israel is responsible for its direct intended actions of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Israel is also responsible for barring the Palestinian civil population from returning once the war was over. Israeli claims that the Palestinian population left their homes voluntarily during the 1948 War have no basis in history. Civilians where forced to leave their residence either by deliberate actions directed at their towns or by fear of such actions. Israel barred their return after the war, demolished their homes and villages, and allocated their homes, offices, and shops in the cities to new Jewish immigrants by Israel.

Examples from Sabri Jiryis and Mustafa al Dabbagh’s work on acts of ethnic cleansing committed by Israel against the Palestinian civilian population after the war during peace times illustrates the Israelis’ intended policies of ethnic cleansing:

• On October 29, 1948 the Israeli army killed 65 people of the Palestinian residents of the village of al Safsaf in the northern Galilee and evacuated the village of its residents (population of 910); the army destroyed the village at a later time.
• On November 5, 1948 the Israeli army forced, by order, the residents of the village of Iqrit to evacuate their village (population of 490 as of 1945) and later destroyed the village.
• On November 15, 1948 the Israeli army forced, by order, the residents of the village Kufr Biram to evacuate their village (population of 710 as of 1945) and later destroyed the village.
• On February 4, 1949 the Israeli army forced the residents of Kufr Anan out of their homes (population of 360 as of 1946) and chased the residents until they crossed the border into the West Bank and later destroyed the village.
• On February 28, 1949 the Israeli army rounded up and transported 700 people from the village of Kufr Yasif and took them by truck to the West Bank border and forced them to cross into the West Bank.
• On March 25, 1949 28 residents of the village of al Rami were forced to cross the border into Jordan.
• On June 5, 1949 the Israeli army and police evacuated all the residents of the villages of Khasas, Ja’ouni, and Qayttiya in the Galilee out of their homes and barred their return.
• On December 24, 1950 the Israeli army ordered the residents of the village of al Ghabsiya in the Galilee, who had come back to the village, to leave the village and later the village was destroyed.
• On August 17, 1950 the Israeli army ordered the residents of the city of al Majdal in the south (now Ashqalon) to evacuate the city. The residents were then transferred by the army into the Gaza district over a three week period. The population of the city was 9,910 as of 1946.
• In February 1950 thirteen small villages in the ‘Ara valley (the triangle area) were evacuated and their residents were forced to cross the border into the West Bank.
• On November 17, 1951 the residents of the village of al Buashat were forced to leave their village by the Israeli army.
• On October 30, 1956 the Palestinian Bedouin tribe al Baqara was forced to cross the border into Syria.
• In 1959 some Palestinian Bedouin tribes from the Negev were forced to cross the borders into Jordan and into Egypt (Jiryis, 1973. Khalidi, 1992 & al Dabbagh, 1973).

All the above mentioned actions were taken after Israel declared the end of a state of emergency on July 14, 1948. They demonstrate Israel’s determined intention to take the Palestinian territories evacuated from their population. These deliberate actions against the Palestinian population clearly implicate Israel as a responsible party in contributing to the plight of the Palestinian refugees.

Britain

In the declaration of Britain’s plans to help create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Balfour Declaration in 1917 stated, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." However, under the British mandate over Palestine, the British government facilitated not only Jewish immigration to Palestine, but also land confiscation, Jewish militia armament, and allowed new Jewish settlers to build arms and ammunition factories in Palestine before they became a state (Khalidi, 1984). The British government did not protect the "civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities," as it claimed it would, but rather was an active participant in the violation of these rights.

The British government ended its authority in Palestine at a time that the country was at war and in a state of total chaos. At the time that the British government declared the end of the mandate over Palestine on May 13, 1948, the Jewish militia’s ethnic cleansing campaign was at its peak. This withdrawal facilitated a defacto Israeli takeover. The declaration of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in and of itself represents a severe violation of the Palestinian people’s civil, national, and human rights. Thus the government of Britain must be held responsible for the losses and the suffering of the Palestinian population and must be made accountable to comply with the UNGA Resolution 194 with respect to providing for compensation.

The United Nations

The third party that holds responsibility for the plight of the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian people’s sufferings is the United Nations. The United Nations partitioned Palestine in 1947 in its November 29 General Assembly Resolution 181. In that resolution, the United Nations intended to form a special commission that would establish the frontiers of the two states according to this Partition Plan. Part I, section B.3 of the resolution stated,

"On its arrival in Palestine, the commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish states and the city of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary."

Pursuant to Resolution 181, the United Nations appointed a commission to establish the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish states proposed in the resolution and to ensure the safety and the preservation of the rights of the civil inhabitants. This commission, however, was dissolved by the United Nations on May 14, 1948 in General Assembly Resolution 186. This commission was dissolved before it accomplished its mission of establishing the frontiers of the two states. On May 15, 1948, the day after this commission was dissolved, the Jewish militias declared independence of the state of Israel over all the territories under their control and continued to claim yet more territories.

The United Nations partition brought the country into a state of war that resulted in grave violations of the rights of the civil inhabitants of Palestine. The United Nations Partition Plan claimed it would protect the civil population. Resolution 181 in Part I, Section B, 10d states, "guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association."

In 53 years, the United Nations did not take any enforcement measures to establish the frontiers it proposed or to reverse the injustices to which the Palestinian civil population was subject. Resolution 181, Part I, Section A,c states, "The General Assembly...requests that...the Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisioned by this resolution."

Much was altered by force on the part of the Israelis from the settlement envisioned in UNGA Resolution 181. Neither the Security Council nor the UN General Assembly have taken any substantive action to correct the alterations made by force. The United Nations humanitarian relief efforts to the exiled Palestinians do not relieve the organization of its primary role in creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Thus, the United Nations must be held responsible.

Peace Initiative

Territorial Configuration