Adel. K. Afifi, M.D.,  May, 2004

I. INTRODUCTION

The State of Israel was founded, in 1948, on two crimes and two lies:

A. The Two Crimes
i. 750,000 Palestinian, representing 50% of the entire Arab population of mandatory Palestine, and 90% of the Arab population of what became the Jewish state, were expelled from their homes.

ii. Israel denies them their right of return.

B. The Two Lies
i. The first lie is the denial by Israel of the first crime (expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians), claiming that the refugees left of their own accord, or were urged to leave by Arab radio broadcasts.

ii. The second lie is the slogan propagated by Israel that “Palestine was a land without people for people without land.”

II. FACTS AND FIGURES

1. In 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were expelled, became refugees, and lost their homes, property, and land in 532 locations within Palestine.

2. A comparison of the depopulation date of each captured village and town with the date of Israeli military operations shows that practically no exodus took place outside the period of hostilities, their departure had been forced on them by military action.

3. Accounts of expulsions reveal that, when expelled, villagers and town people moved to a nearby safe place or stayed with relatives, awaiting an opportunity to return. Those who attempted to return to their villages were shot as infiltrators. Soon after their houses were destroyed and their harvest burned to prevent their return.

4. In 1994, the number of refugees had grown to almost four and a half million (4,476,000). Of these, 30% still live in the West Bank and Gaza, 53% live in neighboring Arab countries. Thus, in toto, 83% of the Palestinian refugees, and 88% of the Palestinians, are still in Palestine or within 100 miles of its borders. The rest are located in the Gulf States, Europe, and the Americas.

5. The numbers of Palestinian refugees in 2004, if defined to include descendants of 1948 refugees and those displaced from the West Bank and Gaza strip displaced in 1967, stand at between four and six million, comprising two-thirds of the Palestinian people.

6. Ninety-two percent (92%) of contemporary Israel is made up of Palestinian land. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the land belongs to Palestinians who became refugees, 7% belongs to Palestinians who remained in Israel.
7. Three hundred fifty of the 370 new Jewish settlements set up between 1948-1953 were built on land belonging to Palestinian refugees (absentee land).

8. In 1948, the Israeli State began to consolidate an official discourse that enabled most Israeli Jews to “forget what they once knew – that during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, a large number of Palestinian Arabs were ethnically cleansed from the territories that became the State Of Israel,

III. THE EXODUS

A. Waves of the Exodus
There were two waves for Palestinian exodus. The first and major wave, estimated by United Nation sources to comprise of 750,000, and by Palestinian sources as one million, occurred in 1948. The second exodus, comprised of 430,000 displaced persons, occurred in 1967.

B. Causes of the Exodus

1. The Official Israeli Narrative

The official Israeli narrative regarding the exodus, propagated by Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister and Defense Minister, states:

a. that the refugees were not expelled but fled before and during 1948, encouraged to do so by local and external Arab leaders.

b. that there are also Jewish refugees (inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter of the old city in Jerusalem and of isolated settlements captured by Egyptians in the Negev.)

2. Rebuttal of the Official Israeli Narrative

There is no evidence to support the Israeli claim that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinians to flee. Even if the Israeli claim were to be true, International Law permits those who fled to return to their homes at the end of hostilities. The available evidence shows that the Palestinians were partly loaded on trucks, partly frightened by show of force, and partly ran away from facing the fate of the inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin who were massacred in cold blood after reaching a truce agreement with nearby Jewish settlers. Ezra Danin’s words to Ben Gurion “The Arabs of the land of Israel have but one task left – to run away.” Danin was a member of the Israeli government Transfer Committee of 1948.

3. The Palestinian Narrative

The Palestinian narrative about causes of the exodus, as developed initially by Walid Khalidi and later by Nur Masalha, provide evidence for a master Zionist plan (Plan Dalet) for expulsion of Palestinians. This narrative states that those who left on their own are some of the elite families, estimated to be approximately 70,000 who left by January 1948. Even those left with the intention of returning. They left without their possessions and did not sell their property.

4. The Israeli New Historians Narrative

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a group of Israeli “new historians’ began to publish findings from research in previously classified archives that supported to a large degree the stated Palestinian narrative.

IV. DISTRIBUTION OF PALESTINIANS

According to data from the 1996 U.S. Bureau of Census and Population, the Palestinian refugees are distributed as follows:

V. CATEGORIES OF REFUGEES

Palestinian refugees are divided into four categories:

a. 1948 Refugees

b. 1967 Refugees

c. Internal Palestinian Refugees. Israeli Palestinians who are in Israel and were there before its creation, but who were denied return to their homes and villages inside Israel.

d. Palestinian inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem (Refugee problem in the making). When Israel occupied East Jerusalem in the 1967 war, it treated the Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem as “residents” and issued them with resident permits subject to renewal at the discretion of Israeli authorities. They were then treated as “aliens”, not as people who have lived in their own country for generations. Many Jerusalemites who happened to be away for work or study at the time of the occupation lost their right to return to their hometown, Jerusalem.

VI. REFUGEES RIGHT OF RETURN – INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

The following international documents affirm the right of return for Palestinian refugees:

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – 1948

a. Article 13 of the Declaration states: “Every one has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”.

Under the Declaration, this right is absolute, and its exercise is at the will of the individual and not the authority in control of the country.

b. Under Article 30 of the Declaration, states are prohibited from taking measures which may destroy any of the rights guaranteed under the Declaration, including the right of return.

c. Israel is thus in violation of articles 13 and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – 1966

Article 12 of the Covenant states “ No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

The Covenant refers to one’s “own country” and not “country of nationality”, i.e. Israeli nationality.

3. Fourth Geneva Convention – 1949

Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportation of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of the motive.”

Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Fourth Geneva Convention speak of repatriation to one’s own country, because they do not recognize population transfer or deportation. The status quo ante must be restored. De facto situations created by an occupying power are not recognized as capable of prejudicing those rights.

The proposition that the Fourth Geneva Convention was intended for application to short periods of occupation is fallacious. It finds no support in the Convention.

The argument that many Palestinian refugees have acquired other nationalities does not hold. Long occupation forces people to obtain another nationality. This is not an exercise of free will to abandon one’s own right in his country. Such people are entitled to exercise their right of return when they so desire.

4. UN Mediator Report, 1948

On September 17, 1948, one day before his assassination in Jerusalem by members of the Zionist terrorist organization, the Stern Gang, UN mediator Count Bernadotte submitted a report to the UN in which he states “The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurances of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return.”

5. UN General Assembly Resolution # 194, 1948

On December 11, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution # 194 which 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 practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for the loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Government or authorities responsible.”

Israel argues that the 1948 UN General Assembly resolution called for repatriation only in the context of an eventual overall settlement. The following facts disproves the Israeli claim:

1. The draft of resolution #194 was introduced by the United Kingdom.

2. Guatemala suggested that Israel should be required to repatriate only upon an overall settlement and proposed an amendment adding “after the proclamation of peace by the contending parties in Palestine, including the Arab States.”

3. In floor debate, Israel supported the Guatemalan amendment.

4. The United States opposed the amendment and argued that the displaced Palestinians “should not be made pawns in the negotiations for a final settlement” (UN Assembly official record, 3rd session, Part I, Sept 21-Dec 8 meeting 1948, 909).

5. The Guatemalan amendment was defeated by 37-7 votes with 5 abstentions.

6. In subsequent resolutions, the General Assembly clearly viewed any Palestinian wishing to return as having a right to do so. In a subsequent resolution (GA Resolution #2326, 1974), the UN General Assembly referred to “the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted.”

6. Security Council Resolution #237, 1967

On June 14, 1967, following a wave of refugees in the aftermath of the 1967 war, the UN Security Council voted “The Security Council called upon Israel to facilitate the return of those displaced in the 1967 war.”

7. UN General Assembly Resolution #2452A

On December 17, 1968, the UN General Assembly called upon Israel to take “effective and immediate steps for the return without delay “ of those who became refugees, some of whom for the second time, as a result of the 1967 hostilities.

8. The International Convention On the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

The International Convention states that “a state may not deny, on racial or ethnic grounds, the opportunity to return to one’s country.”

VII. DURATION OF THE RIGHT OF RETURN

The right continues until such a time as a displaced individual voluntarily abandons the attachment to a home area.

VIII. RIGHT OF RETURN – EXAMPLES FROM THE WORLD

1. Abkhazia

When the war in Abkhazia (part of former Soviet Union) generated an outflow of refugees, the Security Council affirmed the right of “refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes” (Social Security Resolution #876, 1993).

2. Balkan Conflict

Regarding displaced Bosnians, the Security Council resolved (Resolution #779, 1992) that “All displaced persons have the right to return in peace to their former homes.”

Regarding Serbs displaced from their home area in Croatia, the Security Council demanded (Resolution # 1009, 1995) that Croatia “in conformity with internationally recognized standards ----- respect fully the rights of the local Serb population including their rights to remain, leave, or return in safety, and create conditions conducive to the return of those persons who have left their homes.”

3. Namibia Warfare

When the warfare in Nambia (Under South Africa) led to an exodus of refugees, the Security Council called on South Africa (Council Resolution #385, 1977) to “accord unconditionally to all Namibians currently in exile for political reasons full facilities for return to their country.”

4. Cyprus

When Turkey’s intervention in Cyprus in 1974 resulted in Greek Cypriots fleeing from Northern Cyprus to the South, the UN General Assembly (Resolution #37/253) called for “respect of the human rights of all Cypriots and the institution of urgent measures for the voluntary return of the refugees to their homes in safety.”

IX. FEASABILITY OF RETURN

The claim that Israel cannot accommodate the return of refugees is false. The facts are:

1. Israel is divided into 41 natural regions.

2. The first eight of these (8% of Israel) is where the majority (68%) of Jewish Israelis live (Area A). It is the size but not exactly the location of the area in which Jews lived in the pre-1948 Palestine.

3. The next 5 natural regions (Area B) constitute 7% of Israel in which 10% of Israelis live.

4. Thus 78% of the Jewish Israelis live on 15% of the land.

5. Area C (85% of Israel) is similar in size and location but not exactly identical, to the land from which the Palestinian refugees were driven. It is currently occupied by about 800,000 urban Israeli Jews, 154,000 rural Israeli Jews, and 465,000 Israeli Palestinians. In effect, 154,000 Israeli Jews cultivate the land of 4,476,000 refugees who are prevented from returning to it.

6. With return of the Palestinian refugees, the overall population density will be 482 persons per square kilometer (instead of the present 261 person per square kilometer) which is an acceptable figure.

7. With the exception of central districts of Israel, relatively few villages sites are occupied by modern construction. Most kibbutzim buildings are installed away from old Arab village sites.

X, LEGAL BASIS FOR COMPENSATION

a. UN General Assembly Resolutions # 194, December 1948 calling for return of refugees or their compensation. See IV-5.

b. The UN General Assembly Resolution that admitted Israel to UN membership required that Israel abide by the obligations of the International Body’s previous resolutions including the repatriation of refugees and the payment of compensation.

c. Historical Perspectives

1. German restitution after World War II.

2. Treaty between Spain and France, 1678.

3. Treaty of London, 1839, whereby the independence and neutrality of Belgium was agreed.

In #2 and #3 above, provisions were made for restitution to those who, as a result of wars or sequestration, had lost effects, movables, and immovables.

4. Treaty of Sevres signed with Turkey after the First World War required the Turks to pay compensation to Armenians who had fled from Turkey.

5. India-Pakistan partition in 1948. In the riots that followed partition, an estimated eleven million people on both sides fled their homes. The Indian and Pakistani governments set up a machinery to assess the damage and extent of movable and immovable property belonging to the displaced persons and custodians were appointed to look after the property while claims were processed.

XI. FAILED ATTEMPTS AT RESOLUTION

A. Through the United Nations

Refusal of Israel to implement UN resolutions has been the main obstacle to the resolution of the refugee problem. Israeli violations of UN resolutions have been protected by USA vetoes.

B. Resort to Israeli Courts

1. Jamal Aslan et al vs Military Governor of Galilee In February, 1950, villagers of Ghabisiya, a village in North Galilee were ordered by the Israeli Military Governor to leave their village. The village was declared a closed area. The villagers submitted a complaint to the Israeli Supreme Court. The Court judged that the declaration of the area as “closed’ was a legal act.

2. On November 5, 1949, villagers of Ikrit were ordered to leave their  homes “for two weeks until military operations in the area were concluded.” Their attempts to return peacefully were unsuccessful.

They resorted to the Israeli Supreme Court. On July 31, 1951, the Court ordered the Israeli authorities to allow the villagers to return to their village. Israeli authorities refused to implement the decision of the Court and declared the area “closed.” Villagers appealed against the action. On the date fixed for hearing their appeal (December 25, 1952), the Israeli army gave the villagers (all Christians) a Christmas present. It blew up all of the houses in the village.

XII. THE OSLO AGREEMENT AND THE RIGHT OF RETURN

The Declaration of Principles signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) following the Oslo negotiations failed to make any reference to the right of return. Instead the refugees were divided into two categories: 1967 refugees and earlier refugees. Solutions in both categories required the agreement of Israel. The Declaration of Principles we more specific about the 1967 refugees. It referred to them as “displaced persons”. The right of their return per se was accepted in principle, only the mechanisms of such a return were to be discussed. The Declaration of Principles dealt with the refugee problem as a humanitarian problem, not as a problem of rights and failure to permit them to exercise their right. Israeli responsibility is not referred to in the Declaration of Principles.

XIII. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

A. Rashid Khalidi Proposal

1. Israel should accept responsibility For Israelis, the events of 1947-48 are seen as a national rebirth after the Holocaust and are a cause for national celebration. For Palestinians, the same events are seen as an
unmitigated disaster and the focus of national mourning with the 1948 war referred to as Al-Nakba, “the
catastrophe”.

A settlement of the conflict that denies that gross injustice was done to an entire people in 1948 would essentially
require the Palestinians to deny core elements in their own national narrative. It would be tantamount to asking the Israelis to deny the Holocaust.

Acceptance of responsibility by Israel is an official recognition that the deliberate action of Israel’s founding
fathers turned more than half of the Palestinian people into refugees between 1947 and 1949, and led to the loss of nearly all of their property.

Precedents for acceptance of the weight of history are seen in German-Jewish, Korean-Japanese relationships as well as in South Africa.

2. The right of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their homes should be accepted in principle, and as many refugees as possible should, in principle, be allowed to return to what is now Israel. It is appalling for Palestinians suffering persecution and statelessness within sight of their ancestral homes to accept that none of them can ever return to Palestine, while unlimited number of Jewish victims of persecution from much farther lands are welcome to Israel.

3. A provision of reparation for all those who choose not to return should be instituted. Property losses are estimated at $90-147 billion at 1984 prices.

4. The right of refugees to return and live in the Palestinian State should not be the subject of negotiations with Israel.

5. Palestinian refugees in Jordan should be given the choice of full citizenship, or more limited rights as citizen of the Palestinian component of a Jordanian-Palestinian Confederation.

6. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Syria may return to the new Palestinian State, some may be allowed to return to their original homes in Galilee as Israeli citizens. Those who choose to stay in Lebanon or Syria should receive Palestinian passports and nationality and granted permanent resident status in Lebanon or Syria and the right to work.

B. Road Map

The Road Map says nothing about justice, or about the historical punishment meted out to the Palestinian people for too many decades to count.

It leaves to the final stage of the Road Map “negotiations between the parties ‘to include’ an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue”.

XIV. SELECTED QUOTES

A. Martin Buber, a European intellectual Zionist interested in a bi- national State of Palestine, aware of the need of Israel to address the moral aspect of the refugees wrote to David Ben Gurion in 1958 that peace was not just a matter of compromise (partition or reparations) but also of reconciliation.

B. “It doesn’t matter what the Gentiles say, but what the Jews do”. David Ben Gurion, First Prime Minister of Israel.

C. In 1949, Mark Ethridge, US member of the Palestine Conciliation UN Commission stated: “Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinian refugees is morally reprehensible ……her position as conqueror demanding
more does not make for peace.”

D. During 1948 war, Yigal Allon (later Deputy Prime Minister of Israel) commanded the operation that conquered Lydda and Ramle.

According to the Israeli historian Benny Morris, on July 12 and 13, 1948, Israeli troops carried out Allon’s orders expelling 50,000- 60,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle. The deputy commander then was Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel from 1974-1977 and 1992-1995.

E. Ironically, Israel which fought an international battle to gain recognition for the right of Soviet Jews to family unification, is limiting the very same right for Palestinians living inside its boundaries. It thus violates Article 27 of the 4th Geneva Convention which stipulates that nations involved in a state of war or in a military occupation are obliged to respect family rights in all circumstances including the right to live together.

F. Youssef Weitz, head of the Jewish National Fund’s Land Department, in June 1948, wrote “the best way to deal with the abandoned Arab villages was by destruction, renovation, and settlement of Jews.” In August 1948, the Israeli Government decided to implement Weitz ideas to the letter. Three hundred fifty Arab villages were
demolished.

G. Between 1948-1990, Israeli Arabs were despoiled of almost one million acres of their land. An Israeli journalist in Haaretz described this action as “wholesale robbery in legal disguise.”

XIII. SELECTED SOURCES

Abu-Sitta, S.H.: The Right of Return, Sacred, Legal, and Possible (in Arabic). Arab Institute For Studies and Publication. Beirut, Lebanon, 2001.

Karmi, GH and Cotran, E., eds: The Palestinian Exodus 1948-1998. Ithaca Press, 1999.

Khalidi, W; Plan Dalate: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine. J. Palestine Studies 18:4-20, 1988.

Khalidi,W: From Haven to Conquest. Institute of Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C., 1987.

Khalidi, W: All that Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Institute of Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C., 1992.

Masalha, N: Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of Transfer in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Institute of Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C., 1992.

Morris, B: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problems 1947-1949. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.

Pappe, I: The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951. I.B.Tauris, London, 1992.

Contributed by the author