A Presentation of the Geneva Accord
Between Israel and PLO
With Reference to Precedent
Agreements
Third Part
Refugees
2. Israeli
Responsibility in the Palestinians Refugees’ Problem
3. The End of the
Status of Refugee
5. The State of Palestine and the Refugees
6. Compensation of
the Palestinian Refugees
Fribourg 26 November 2003
Asem Khalil
Asem Khalil. Born in Zababdeh, West Bank/the Occupied Palestinian Territories on
1976. B.A. in Philosophy (1997), B.A./Master/PhD. in Law (Utriusque Iuris) from
the Lateran University in Rome, 2003. Now, preparing a thesis to obtain Ph.D.
in Public Law, from the University of Fribourg/Switzerland. Proposed title of
the thesis: "The Constituent Power of the Palestinian People". For comments,
proposals, suggestions, please contact the author of the dissertation at: asemkhalil@gawab.com
1.1. The parties, conscious of the difficulties to treat the problem of refugees, with its emotional, legal and political connotations, dedicate a long article to this issue (7). Many believe that the agreement does not answer to Palestinian aspirations to a just and fair solution of the refugees’ problem in accordance with international law, and UN resolutions. This explain the critics made in the local Palestinian newspapers since Palestinians receive nothing in exchange from the Israeli side, but other promises; now, Palestinians are skeptic towards promises.
1.2. Some believes that Palestinian request is impossible, since the refugees’ return to the actual state of Israel may create a demographic problem, especially in relation to the proportion of Arabs in the only Jewish state in the world. Still, we have to admit that the refugee problem is bad presented in this agreement, because the significance of the refugee problem cannot be limited in its importance to the solution of the conflict, to the stability or/and to the development of the region. This is why it is not true that article 7 represent the fulfillment of Refugees rights as represented by UNGAR 194, UNSC Resolution 242, and the Arab Peace Initiative (article 7.2).
2.1. There is a cause for the disaster of the Palestinian refugees. This responsible was condemned by the UN and invited to give the permission to those people to return to their homes and properties. It is true that every state in the region shall assume its responsibility, including Israel that has to assume its (part of) responsibility to the Palestinian refugees’ problem.
2.2. The Palestinian refugees’ problem, in fact, is a disaster, created in a specific place and history. Palestinian refugees are not a creation of destiny, but of a specific history. Their problem is related to the 1948 war and the Israeli hostility towards Arabs, during, and immediately after the war. This hostility meant terrorist attacks and a systematic government policy that viewed in the Arabs a danger to the same foundation of the state of Israel that is its Jewish character.
2.3. This disaster is not humanitarian only; it is also a legal and political problem related to a people, and not only to individuals or to a group of individuals. A people that does not stop since then to fight for its right to self-determination, liberation and statehood.
2.4. The problem of refugees in Geneva agreement becomes an individual issue. It is more a question of compensation and does not reflect necessarily any one’s moral responsibility. When speaking about refugees, Israel is mentioned indirectly: actually, the agreement mention that it will participate in the compensation process, as if it was any other state in the region, and not the main reason of such humanitarian disaster.
2.5. It is interesting to notice that the right to return is never mentioned in the agreement, and this is a logic consequence of the non-responsibility Israel as in the agreement. Instead, the agreement uses these words: Choice of Permanent Place of Residence! Actually, Palestinians may choose: first, the state of Palestine including the areas transferred in the land swap; second, present Host countries in accordance with the sovereign discretion of present host countries, and third, other countries including Israel, and according to their sovereign well to absorb the number of Palestinians that it will communicate to the international agency following this process.
3.1. The agreement provides the end of the claims of the parties upon the implementation of this agreement, and the end of the status of refugees upon the individual decision regarding his Choice of Permanent Place of Residence. In the words of the agreement, no other claims may be issued, unless in the implementation of Geneva Accord. In fact, the agreement provides a solution that will not be necessarily implemented, as such, it would not necessarily end the question of refugees, and their claims.
3.2. Besides, it seems very important to underline that the individual informed choice will not be immediately implemented. This will be the case for example, of Palestinian refugees who choose to return to the now-Israel. Their decision will depend on the number that the state of Israel will admit, taking in consideration the number that other states admit.
4.1. An
important problem rises here regarding the Host countries. It seems that their
participation in the process of resolving the refugees’ problem will be
subordinated to its well to absorb a number of Palestinian refugees that will
communicate to the international commission. Now, this decision may not occur,
and then, would create a real problem with the existing refugees that would
prefer to stay in that country.
4.2. The agreement, in fact, is binding for the
two parties, as such, their invitation to third countries will be limited and
without real obligation, because it is out of the
possibilities of this bilateral agreement. For this reason, the problem of
refugees in special way, need to be treated in its regional and international
dimension, recognized in the same agreement. The international dimension of the
refugee problem is remarkable. The role of UN agencies was decisive in
providing the elementary necessities of the refugees, and the UN resolutions
provided the frame for the international consideration of that issue.
5.1. The return to the Palestinian state is a
right to every Palestinian refugees limited only by this Palestinian domestic
law. Any choice will not prejudice the recognition of Palestine as the
realization of Palestinian self-determination and statehood (article 7.5.). In
this sense, Palestine does need the Israeli nulla osta for the return of
Palestinians to the territory of the state of Palestine.
5.2. Besides, the question of refugees is lift for the individuals, for the good well of the states of the region and for the work of the international commission. The Palestinian state, will participate as others, without a specific title in implementing the agreement.
6.1 The agreement invites the international community to fully participate in the process of resolving the refugees’ problem. This would include the establishment of an international commission and fund (article 7.9.) that are regulated with details in article 7.11. and article 7.12. While the UNRWA shall cease to exist within five years of the commission operation and its functions will be transferred to hosted states (7.13.).
6.2. Besides, the agreement uses the term displacement.
Now, a displaced is different from a refugee, since the first is
the one who is forced to leave his property within his same country. The
refugee, on the other hand is the one who is forced to leave his property and
his country of origin. Compensation shall be for both, according to the
estimation the Panel of Experts that the international commission will appoint.
6.3. The cost of the settlements that Israel would leave for the Palestinian State (see part II) will be deduced from the Israeli sum of money, agreed with the Palestinians. Here the terms are vague and can be object of different interpretation and estimation, and as such, a reason of tension between parties, that may obstacle the implementation of the present agreement.
7.1 The agreement includes an interesting article regarding the “reconciliation program” (article 7.14). This means that parties agree on the necessity of a real peace that parties have to construct after the agreement, and consist on mutual understanding through a constant exchange of experiences regarding the past. This includes some cross-community cultural programs in order to promote the goals of conciliation in relation to their respective histories.
7.2. Palestinians and Israelis are invited to memorize their disasters and recognize the others’. This confrontation with the past helps to avoid confrontation between parties, since it will be based on mutual recognition and mutual “pardon”. This can be motivated by the necessity to end the conflict, or at least, the opportunity to do that, for the good of the population, their security and their prosperity. In other words, this reconciliation is necessary for the future of the Israelis and the Palestinians, and as such shall have the priority for the Palestinian and Israeli state.