The Palestinian Right of Return: Facts vs. Feelings

Taka Yamaguchi’s article “The Palestinian Right of Return: What Once Was” purports to provide a solid foundation for Palestinians’ claim to a right of return to their former homes in present-day Israel. It provides firsthand accounts and interviews of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Jordan, and even features photographs of posters and artwork expressing the desire of many Palestinians to one day go back. The only thing the article lacks is the basis for any strong argument—cold, hard facts.

In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the British colony of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. This partition was immediately and overwhelmingly rejected by the Arab world. Despite being given less land, mostly in the undeveloped desert and nowhere near Jerusalem, the Jews accepted the plan and declared the independence of the State of Israel on May 18, 1948.

Arab political leaders declared war on Israel almost as soon as it had declared its independence. The resulting conflict displaced many Palestinians from their homes for a variety of reasons. Some saw the incoming armies and fled for safety. Some heeded the advice of attacking Arab leaders, who promised the elimination of Israel after the dust had settled.

Before they left, Israeli Prime Minister David ben Gurion welcomed all Palestinians to become citizens of the State of Israel. His Declaration of the Independence of the State of Israel appealed “to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.” This offer did not stop many Palestinians from leaving.

Some people like to compare the Palestinians who left with the roughly equal number of Jews expelled from Arab nations by anti-Semitic riots and evictions that erupted around the same time that Israel declared its independence. However, these situations are not analogous. In this latter case, the oppressed were physically expelled due to the intolerance and hatred of those around them. The Palestinians who left did so for a number of reasons, which were many times related to an overriding sentiment of intolerance and hatred among Arab leaders that made them feel obligated to leave. This perceived obligation superseded the pleas of the newly formed Israeli government for coexistence and collaboration, which were rejected for the prospect of living in a different, non-Jewish, state.

In this rejection, those who left refused their place as members of the State of Israel. They instead wished for a world in which that state would not exist. The idea that these same people who refused inclusion in the State of Israel have a right to return to live in a Jewish state along with their descendants is, at the very least, highly debatable. The fact that the number now claiming this right is four million, who all want to inhabit a country the size of New Jersey with a current population of almost eight million, is preposterous.

Nevertheless, Mr. Yamaguchi claims that the Palestinians who left have an unquestionable right to return to Israel when he asserts, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that civilians maintain the right to return to the homes from which they fled in wartime, and that no one may prevent them from doing so.” Despite the confidence of this assertion, the UDHR, as represented on the website of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml), contains no such provision. The article of the declaration most resembling the author’s intention, Article 13, states:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Prior to 1948, the land which now comprises the State of Israel was not its own country. It was a British colony known as Palestine. The Palestinians who left their homes in 1948 clearly did not see Israel as their country, nor did they wish to return to a Jewish state. The article’s application of the UDHR to this situation is perplexing. If the Palestinians do consider Israel their country, why did they leave in 1948? Why did they not stay and help shape the future identity of the state? Why did they not build their own state in the land partitioned to them in 1947? Can they legitimately claim, in retrospect, membership to a political entity they formerly disdained only because they have no other way to achieve their goals?

Of all of the predicaments in the Middle East circa 1948, the UDHR is most applicable to the expulsion of Jews from other Middle Eastern countries. The terms of their dismissal were in direct conflict with Article 7 of the Declaration, which states:

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

Furthermore, they were contributing members of already established and existent political states when they left, which means that according to the provisions of Article 13 (above), they have an undeniable right to return to their former homes. Despite this entitlement, these individuals and their families claim no such right. They have realized that after more than sixty years, the verisimilitude of a prospective return to the past is virtually non-existent. They and their descendants have settled in other nations (many of them in Israel) and have, over time, moved on with their lives. Billions of dollars in international aid over the last 64 years, including $2.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer money in the last 20 years, have not helped Palestinians do the same. While the United States has been the largest sole contributor to the United Nations Reliefs and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Arab nations, which encouraged Palestinians to leave in the first place and which have held over 1.3 million Palestinians in refugee camps to this day, did not contribute a cent until the 1990’s.

Palestinians’ anger towards Israel will do nothing to change the ambivalence of Arab leaders towards their plight. Rather than ask why Arab countries have not allowed the integration of Palestinians into their societies after 64 years of suffering, Mr. Yamaguchi points the finger at “fear-mongering” Israeli politicians. If Mr. Yamaguchi knew anything about the history of the region, he would know that Israel’s history is full of practical-minded political leaders who have dared to facilitate a sustainable and peaceful future for their citizens despite what could be called the most precarious political existence in human history. He would know that all of Israel’s neighbors have declared war on it multiple times, and that the territories surrounding it are full of terrorist groups and extreme actors committed to its destruction. He would know that despite these ever-present dangers, from its very foundation, Israel has been a state that has sought to welcome citizens of every faith and ethnicity, beginning with the Arabs living within its borders in 1948. He would know that Israel is, and always has been, a fully democratic nation that gives full, equal rights to all of its citizens, irrespective of their race, religion, or ethnicity. He would know that Israel has made extreme territorial sacrifices totaling four times its current land mass in order to negotiate two peace treaties with adversary nations Jordan and Egypt. He would know that Israel has time and again entered into negotiations with Palestinian political leaders in order to reach a resolution. He would know that twice in the last fifteen years, first with Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999 and later with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, Israel met over 95% of Palestinian demands to work out a peaceful, two-state solution. And, most importantly, he would know that twice in the last fifteen years, Israel was rejected outright without even a counter-offer.

But, of course, Mr. Yamaguchi only knows what he learned in his three month “hands-on crash course on the Palestinian condition.” He knows that Palestinians like Nabil feel that in a future Palestinian state, “There will be problems, but between Palestinian and Palestinian—between brothers,” but he does not realize that the exclusion of Jews in this vision contradicts Article 1 of the UDHR, which states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

To be fair, Mr. Yamaguchi cannot be blamed for caring about the Palestinians he saw and met during his summer experience. Indeed, compassion is the fundamental principle that stands behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  But feelings expressed without reference to historical context or external factors create a much distorted picture that threatens the accurate perception of any situation. More often than not, this distortion can only be corrected by consulting the facts.