UNRWA, Terror and the Refugee Conundrum

C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY CMY
K
Ó
ÔÂÎ
Ò¯‚˜‰
Ȅ‰ȉ
ÈÓÏÂÚ‰
Institute
of the
World
Jewish
Congress
Policy Forum No. 26
Ó
ÔÂÎ
Ò¯‚˜‰
Ȅ‰ȉ
ÈÓÏÂÚ‰
Avi Beker
Institute
of the
World
Jewish
Congress
21 Arlozorov St., P.O.B. 4293, Jerusalem 91042†ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È†¨4293 Æ„Æ˙††¨21†·Â¯ÂÊÂϯ‡†ßÁ¯
Fax: 02-5635544†∫Ò˜Ù
Tel: 02-5635261∫ÏË
UNRWA, Terror
and the Refugee
Conundrum:
Perpetuating
the Misery
UNRWA, Terror
and the Refugee
Conundrum:
Perpetuating
the Misery
Avi Beker
Cover
Front: A Palestinian Arab boy in the Balata Refugee
Camp, on the outskirts of Nablus (Shechem).
Photo: Israel Government Press Office/Yitzhak Harari
Back: Tending the wounded in the wake of a Palestinian
Arab terrorist outrage in Jerusalem.
Photo: Reuters/Abed Omar Qusini
Background: An aerial view of Jenin in the aftermath
of Operation Defensive Shield, April 2002.
Photo: Israel Government Press Office
© 2003 by Institute of the World Jewish Congress, Jerusalem.
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior
written permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0793-2596
Printed in Israel
Design & Production: Studio Efrat / Nitsa Bruck
3
Summary
The history of the twentieth century is full of instances of population transfers and resolved
refugee crises. Since the Second World War – just 57 years ago – there have been 135 million
refugees. Almost none of them are still refugees. The only refugee problem that has yet to be
resolved is that of the Palestinian Arabs. Today, the Arab states continue to hold their Palestinian
brethren as a trump card in their effort to vanquish Israel. They behave as if oblivious to the very
real human tragedy of those they hold hostage to their designs — and the role they themselves
played in creating and perpetuating that tragedy. Indeed, the Arab campaign for the “right of
return” of Palestinian Arabs to Israel is simply a formula to eliminate the State of Israel and
rejects, in essence, the very idea of a two state solution (one state for Jews and another for
Palestinian Arabs) to the Middle East Conflict.
Historically, there was an exchange of populations in the Middle East; and indeed, the
number of displaced Jews exceeds the number of the Palestinian Arabs refugees. Most of the Jews
were expelled as a result of a policy of antisemitic incitement and even ethnic cleansing. The Jews
have become the “Forgotten Refugees” because over time they were absorbed and integrated
(mostly in Israel) and there was no political will to exploit their situation. On the other hand, not
only has the Palestinian Arab refugee issue gone unresolved, it has actually been perpetuated. In
December 1949, the United Nations established a special agency to aid the refugees, the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA. The agency currently has a staff of more than
20,000, and an annual budget of $311 million. What started as a “temporary” organization has
become a cynical instrument used to perpetuate the refugee problem. Gradually, UNRWA camps
have become military bastions, bases where terrorists are trained, children are indoctrinated to
hate, and suicide-bombers extolled as heroes.
The Author
Dr. Avi Beker is the Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress and the head of its research
institute. He received his PhD in international relations at the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York and was a member of the Israeli mission to the United Nations. He has
written and edited several books and many articles on international security and Jewish affairs
including The United Nations and Israel, Jewish Culture and Identity in the Soviet Union and
Jewish Communities of the World.
5
Avi Beker
UNRWA, Terror and the Refugee
Conundrum: Perpetuating the Misery
Introduction
There are two refugee problems in the Arab-Israeli conflict: one Jewish and one Arab. Yet, while
the Palestinian Arabs stand at the very heart of the peace process – with the explosive issue of the
“right of return” blocking any form of settlement between the parties – their Jewish counterparts
are a forgotten case. Today, there are no longer any Jewish refugees in the Middle East, and their
story – of oppression and expulsion from various Arab countries in the prelude to and aftermath
of the 1948 war – has become that of the “Forgotten Exodus.” This is primarily so because the
900,000 Jews who were forced out of Arab countries
following the establishment of the State of Israel have not
The deliberate Arab
been refugees for many years. They were rehabilitated and
resettled within Israel and other parts of the world, as were
refusal to absorb the
nearly 135 million refugees created since the end of World
refugees was part of an
War II. About 620,000 of the Jewish refugees from Arab
overall Arab strategy to
lands were absorbed by Israel – a tiny, arid country that is
shame, and ultimately
practically devoid of natural resources. The remaining
defeat, the Jewish State
300,000 sought sanctuary in other countries, such as
France, Canada, Brazil, Italy, and the United States. The
Jews from Arab countries were forced to abandon their homes and livelihoods; to turn their backs
on centuries of Jewish history, culture and community; to leave behind schools, synagogues,
hospitals and businesses – all without their owners receiving anything that came close to adequate
compensation. In contrast, the Palestinian Arab refugees living in Arab countries and in areas
under Arab control (including those who arrived in the so-called West Bank and Gaza District,
which were under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively, until 1967) were deliberately
kept in misery and retained their refugee status through the current time. This deliberate Arab
refusal to absorb the refugees was part of an overall Arab strategy to shame, and ultimately defeat,
the Jewish State.
The “Forgotten Exodus” of the Jews is not just another untold chapter of history. The
Jewish exodus from Arab countries touches the very heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It
highlights the responsibility of the Arab countries for pursuing antisemitic policies before the
establishment of the State of Israel and in its aftermath. It plainly shows their adamant refusal to
accept the existence of Israel – a Jewish State in the Middle East – and it demonstrates how the
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
6
Palestinian refugee issue has been cynically exploited to advance this strategy. These policies and
practices, dating back more than half a century, continue unabated even to the present day.
At the outset, it is important to note that during the Camp David talks of July 2000,
American President Bill Clinton recognized that the Middle East refugee problem has two sides,
as it includes both Arab and Jewish refugees. In a press conference held 23 years earlier, on
October 27, 1977, President Jimmy Carter had already made the following statement regarding
the Egyptian-Israeli Peace treaty and the issue of refugees: “Palestinians have rights…obviously
there are Jewish refugees…they have the same rights as others do.” In 2000, President Clinton
made a similar reference but went further with his commitment to the issue and spoke about
compensating Jews who were expelled from Arab lands:
… [the fund should] compensate the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which
occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who
lived in predominately Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees
in their own land.1
“Israel is full of people,
Jewish people, who lived in
predominately Arab
countries who came to Israel
because they were made
refugees in their own land”
Bill Clinton
Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi-born political scientist and powerful
critic of Saddam Hussein’s regime, once wrote about “the
Palestinian right to be left alone.” While explaining that the
“problems of occupation” create legitimate demands on the
Israeli democracy, Makiya rejects the way the Arabs exploit
the Palestinian issue at every convenient opportunity:
“Whenever the “crisis
in democracy” in
the Arab world
gets wedded to
Iraqi Jewish refugees arrive at a ma’abara (transit camp) in Israel, 1950-51. Photo: Courtesy of Carole Basri
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
7
E
Destinations of Jewish Exodus from the Arab World
To Great Britain
France
Atlantic Ocean
Italy
Black Sea
Caspian
Sea
Tunisia
Syria
Lebanon
Mediterranean Sea
Iraq
Morocco
Algeria
Libya
Egypt
Yemen
& Aden
To North
and South
America
Jews in Arab Countries
At the time of the establishment of the State of Israel,
there were some 900,000 Jews living in the Arab world:
Country
Aden (1949)
Population
8,000
Algeria (1948)
140,000
Egypt (1948)
85,000
Iraq (1948)
Lebanon (1948)
Libya (1948)
Morocco (1948)
Syria (1947)
135,000
5,000
38,000
300,000
30,000
Tunisia (1948)
105,000
Yemen (1949)
55,000
There were also a few hundred Jews in Bahrain and Sudan
The State of Israel absorbed more than 620,000 of these Jews.
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
8
“the struggle against Israel”
one knows in advance that
nothing is going to change
for the better in Arab
politics. A fondness for
weapons of mass destruction
and leaders like Saddam
Hussein is invariably the
outcome.” Similarly, in his
address on June 24, 2002
President George W. Bush
said that “[f]or decades
[Palestinians] have been
treated as pawns in the
Middle East conflict. Your
interests have been held
A young commando holding a machine gun: nourished on hate and raised in
misery in a Palestinian refugee camp outside Beirut, 1970. Photo: CORBIS/
hostage to a comprehensive
Owen Franken
peace agreement that never
seems to come, as your lives get worse year by year.” As reported recently in the New York Times, the
Palestinian issue plays a central role in Arab political and social life. It provides a scapegoat for protest
and a safety valve to let off steam in these dictatorships:
In many Arab countries, most of which are tightly controlled, [the Palestinian issue] had
been the only topic on which governments have allowed public debate. Until the Iraq
war…most Arab governments only permitted demonstrations if they were in support of
Palestinians.2
The championing of the Palestinian Arab cause has always served as a source of legitimacy for the
manifestly illegitimate governments of many Arab countries. Moreover, ever since the beginning
of the 1948 conflict, the Arabs have used the issue of the refugees as a tool in their effort to
achieve through diplomacy what they had failed to achieve on the battlefield in that conflict and
in the subsequent armistice agreements.
The misery of the Palestinian Arab refugees must be understood against this background.
Even before Israel entered the territories in the 1967 Six Day War, the Arab countries never allowed
their Palestinian brethren to settle permanently in their new (Arab) countries of residence or to be
rehabilitated there. In all the countries in which they arrived, the Palestinians were barred from
holding many jobs and denied basic rights. The establishment, in 1949, of the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which, unlike the UN High Commissioner for Refugees,
blocks any kind of rehabilitation plan for the refugees, served to perpetuate this state of affairs.
According to its self-professed mission, as posted on its website, UNRWA does not aim to solve
the problem of the refugees. Indeed, camps that were built as “temporary” facilities by UNRWA
have become a part of a cynical plan designed to perpetuate the refugee problem and to serve as
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
9
painful testimony to the cold-heartedness of “the Zionist entity.” In 1959, when the United
Nations, and chiefly its Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, introduced initiatives to develop a
comprehensive refugee resettlement scheme in the Middle East, fierce Arab opposition was
encountered and the plans were immediately dropped. UNRWA, which was intended to be a
temporary agency, has become, by 2003, an operation with more than 20,000 staff members (98
percent of which are Palestinian Arabs) and a budget of more than $300 million annually.
Arab countries are largely responsible for both the Jewish and Arab refugee problem. Unlike
the Palestinian Arabs, the Jews were expelled systematically,
under official regime policy which included anti-Jewish decrees,
Arab countries are
pogroms, murders and hangings, antisemitic incitement and
largely responsible for
ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians, on the other hand, left the
both the Jewish and
area in the course of an 18-month war, when several Arab armies
Arab refugee problem
opposing the UN partition resolution invaded Israel. It was, in
large part, due to threats and fear mongering from Arab leaders
that some 500,000 Arabs fled. Arab leaders told Palestinians to leave, as did the Iraqi Prime
Minister, Nuri Said: “We shall smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews
seek shelter in. The Arabs should
conduct their wives and children to safe
areas until the fighting has died down.”
In March 1976, in the official
journal of the PLO in Beirut, Falastin
al-Thawra, the current Palestinian
Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas (also
known as Abu Mazen), wrote:
The Arab armies entered Palestine
to protect the Palestinians from
the Zionist Tyranny, but instead
they abandoned them, forced
them to emigrate and to leave
their homeland, imposed upon
them a political and ideological
blockade and threw them into
prisons similar to the ghettos in
which the Jews used to live in
Eastern Europe…3
The hundreds of thousands of Arabs
who did not heed Nuri Said and other
Arab leaders stayed in Israel, a decision
most have not regretted.
First day of the new year in an UNRWA school in Gaza in
August 2002: Learning to read and write, and indoctrinated to
hate Jews and the Jewish State. Photo: Reuters/Suhaib Salem
T H E
R E F U G E E
10
C O N U N D R U M
A comparative chart: Palestinian Arab vs. other refugees
UNRWA is an agency created specifically for the Palestinian refugees.
UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) responds to all other refugee
problems in the world.
Figures taken from the respective websites: www.un.org/unrwa and www.unhcr.ch.
UNRWA
UNHCR
Number of refugees served
3.9 million
19.9 million
Budget
$315 million
$881 million
This breaks down to almost twice as much spent per refugee served
by UNRWA as per refugee served by UNHCR
Number of countries and
territories where it operates
5
120
Number of offices maintained 5
277
Size of staff
23,000
5,000
About 1 staff person per
170 refugees
About 1 staff person per
4,000 refugees
Anyone who lost place of
residence and means of
livelihood as a result of 1948
Arab-Israeli war
Person who is outside country
of his habitual residence due
to a well-founded fear of
being persecuted
Definition of refugee
Note: The 1951 Refugee convention applies to all refugees except
Palestinian Arabs.
Descendant of refugees also
counted as refugees
Yes
No
Mandate
To provide humanitarian
To protect refugees and
services until the refugees can resolve refugee problems
return to pre-1948 homes
Yes. No other options are
Return to place of origin
considered an inalienable right considered. Goal is to keep
them in temporary situation
until they are permitted to
return
No. The right protected is to
find asylum; re-settlement in
country of refuge or a third
country are options when
return is not possible. Goal is
to help refugees get on with
their lives
Education and Health Care
provided
Only in certain instances.
Countries of refuge are
expected to assist
Yes, UNRWA maintains
schools and clinics
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
A Palestinian Arab woman in Gaza, recipient of UNRWA aid. Photo: Reuters/Ahmed Jadallah
11
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
12
UN Security Council resolution 242, which was adopted in 1967 as the basis for resolving
the Arab-Israeli dispute, calls for a “just settlement of the refugee problem.” It makes no
distinction between Arab refugees and former Jewish refugees from Arab countries. This principle
was reaffirmed in the Camp David accords (1979) and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace treaty. The fact
that Israel absorbed the Jews who were compelled to flee Arab states does not lessen Arab
responsibility for their exodus. The sharp contrast between the experiences of the two groups of
refugees only dramatizes the responsibility of the Arab countries, who, together with the
international community, created the machinery that perpetuated the misery of the Palestinian
Arab refugees. An official document of the PLO from the year 2000 reaffirms the Arab strategy
to keep the refugees in the camps:
In order to keep the refugee issue alive and prevent Israel from evading responsibility for
their plight, Arab countries – with the notable exception of Jordan – have usually sought
to preserve a Palestinian identity by maintaining the Palestinians’ status as refugees.4
The basic flaw with previous peace efforts lies in the continuing, decades-old policy of
deliberately neglecting the refugee issue and deferring its resolution until some future distant
date. Any comprehensive peace plan dealing with Israeli withdrawal to new borders must include
a thorough account of the two populations of refugees: both the Jews and the Arabs, with a
political and humanitarian solution for the Palestinian refugees as a major component.
The parties in the Middle East are currently discussing a new framework for peace called
“A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict.”The parties have accepted this Roadmap, and the Israeli government voted to approve
the establishment of a Palestinian State. The Roadmap only tangentially addresses the refugee
problem, and postpones it to the last stage in order to achieve
“an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee
A fair and just
issue.” This ambiguity is not necessarily constructive. What is
solution must start
“fair, just and realistic”? Who are the refugees? Should we
with the premise that
again leave the explosive issue of the “right of return” in
there was an exchange limbo, looming over every stage in the peace process? Is not
of populations in the
this “right of return” simply a formula to replace the State of
Middle East and there Israel – a formula which in essence rejects a two-state solution?
is no way to turn back
the historical clock
A fair, just and realistic solution to the refugee problem
must start with the recognition that there are two refugee
problems in the Middle East and both should be compensated.
A fair and just solution must start with the premise that there was an exchange of populations in
the Middle East and there is no way to turn back the historical clock. A realistic solution must
recognize that along with Israeli commitments to withdrawal, there must be a change in
priorities, promoting a concrete program to rehabilitate and resettle the refugees – as a
prerequisite, rather than as an afterthought – to the peace process.
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
13
The early resolutions
Any discussion of the United Nations’ role in perpetuating the Palestinian Arab refugee problem
must consider the overall context of the UN’s heavily biased policies regarding the Arab-Israeli
conflict. The anti-Zionist and antisemitic campaign at the United Nations went completely
beyond the bounds of what can be permitted in the context of debate between political rivals in
an international organization. In order to contribute to
political discussions on the problem of the Palestinian
refugees, the United Nations will need to develop a
completely new framework of deliberations and
negotiations.5
Since it began its first mediation efforts in
connection with the Arab-Israeli conflict the United
Nations has consistently addressed the refugee problem.
Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations mediator
appointed in 1948, was one of the first international
figures to bring the issue to world attention.
Historically, UN activities involving Middle East
refugees have always referred to the key General
Assembly Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948.
Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion
meeting with UN Deputy Secretary-General,
Resolution 194 dealt with the Progress Report of the
Dr. Ralph Bunche in 1949. Photo: Israel
United Nations Mediator and established the Palestine
Government Press Office/ Hans Pinn
Conciliation Commission (PCC). The United Nations
played a positive role in mediating the armistice agreements which were signed in 1949 and its
mediator, UN Deputy Secretary-General Dr. Ralph Bunche, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
for his efforts. However, the United Nations has since abandoned its even-handed role.
Significantly, after its adoption of Resolution 194, the General Assembly refused for many years to
even use the word “peace” in its references to a settlement between the parties in the Middle East.
After it established the PCC, the UN seemed to have forgotten the expertise its mediators
had developed and the lessons they had learned in negotiating the armistice agreement. Thus, the
text of Resolution 194 marked the deterioration in the attitude taken by the UN regarding the
very concept of a negotiated resolution of the conflict, by deliberately referring to indirect, rather
than direct, negotiations. Indeed, the Resolution called for “the establishment of a framework
which enables the commission to content itself with indirect contacts between the sides as
facilitating the exchange of views.” Similarly, the PCC itself proclaimed in its interim report that
it had no intention of “assembling the representatives of the two parties around one table or even
under the same roof.” In this context it is clear that the PCC mandate to solve the problem of
the Arab refugees was doomed to fail.
Despite its unhelpful language regarding the nature of the negotiations it proposed,
Resolution 194 did offer an outline for a settlement of the conflict, including a practical formula
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
14
for resolving the refugee problem and working towards their resettlement and rehabilitation. The
resolution’s reference to the refugees came immediately after the guidelines on the economic
development of the area that the PCC was asked to seek and negotiate. As Paragraph 11 states:
The General Assembly . . .
11. 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 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:
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and
economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to
maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees
and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations.
UNRWA) was established to implement these resolutions – “works” meant the provision of
employment for refugees in development projects that would facilitate rehabilitation. The next year,
on 14 December 1950, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 394 on “Repatriation or
Resettlement and Compensation,” which called for the establishment of an office to deal with the
assessment and payment of compensation due to refugees. In this text, the option of resettlement
was still emphasized; the General Assembly noted “with concern ... that the repatriation,
resettlement, economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation
have not been affected.”
Terrorism under UNRWA
Israel’s position concerning the Palestinian Arab refugees has remained constant and is reiterated
at every meeting of the General Assembly. Israel regards the issue as part of the standing issues
that need to be resolved within the framework of a comprehensive peace settlement with the Arab
world. In their annual statement at the United Nations discussions on UNRWA, Israeli delegates
have consistently rejected proposals that advocate the unconditional repatriation of Palestinian
refugees. Moreover, in referring to compensation and financial losses, Israel always raises the
plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands who were forced to leave their homes and flee to the
newly established State of Israel.6 The Arabs, on their part, at first rejected Resolution 194, but
they later chose to adopt its paragraph 11 as a diplomatic battle-cry, and have since persistently
interpreted it as mandating an unconditional “right of return.” Citing the paragraph’s reference
to refugees being “permitted” to “return to their homes,” the Arab states consistently refused to
cooperate with any plan designed for economic integration.
A significant turning point in the United Nations attitude to the refugees came in 1952.
Immediately after the Conciliation Commission despaired of the chances of reaching a
comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the General Assembly, under Arab influence,
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
15
decided to separate the refugee issue from the totality of problems included in the overall
Arab-Israeli conflict. From then on, it was given a clearly political dimension, and defined as an
issue that needed to be solved only in accordance with the “right of return”7 to a political and
territorial entity known as Palestine. While in 1948 Resolution 194 referred to “resettlement” of
the refugees as an alternative to the solution of the problem, in 1952 that term joined a list of
taboos which were never referred to in the UN’s handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Furthermore, the Arabs rejected the 1949
Security Council proposals for an economic
survey with regard to settling the refugees
in different parts of the Middle East. Ten
years later they also reacted with fury when
UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold
presented a multi-year plan in June 1959 for
the rehabilitation of the refugees.
This approach was manifest in the very
establishment of UNRWA, which is the only
UN agency mandated to deal with a refugee
problem existing in only one region. Even
though there have been 135 million refugees
have been created since the Second World
War, most of whom were uprooted from
their homes following armed strife between
countries or civil wars, the United Nations
has not established any other permanent
agencies to deal with any specific body of
UN observers from Sweden (left) and Belgium (right)
refugees. All the refugees throughout the
inspect the body of an Israeli murdered at the pump house
world, except the Palestinian Arabs, came
of an orange grove in Ness Ziona by a Palestinian Arab
infiltrator from Gaza, 1953. Photo: Israel Government
under the High Commissioner for Refugees
Press Office/Moshe Pridan
at the United Nations, whose offices began
operating in 1951, and which stresses the humanitarian and political character of the aid rendered.8
On November 17, 1959, Abba Eban, then Israel’s ambassador to the UN, raised the
subject at the Special Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, and put the
blame directly on the Arab States:
…the perpetuation of this refugee problem is an unnatural event, running against the
whole course of experience and precedent. Since the end of the Second World War,
problems affecting forty million refugees have confronted governments in various parts of
the world. In no case, except that of the Arab refugees, amounting to less than two percent
of the whole, has the international community shown constant responsibility and provided
lavish aid. In every other case a solution has been found by the integration of refugees into
their host countries. In every case but that of the Arab refugees now in Arab lands the
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
16
countries in which the refugees sought shelter have facilitated their integration. In this case
alone has integration been obstructed.
The paradox is the more astonishing when we reflect that the kinship of language, religion,
social background and national sentiment existing between the Arab refugees and their
Arab host countries has been at least as intimate as those existing between any other host
countries and any other refugee groups. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the
integration of Arab refugees into the life of the Arab world is an objectively feasible process
which has been resisted for political reasons…
It is painfully evident that this refugee problem has been artificially maintained for political
motives against all the economic, social and cultural forces which, had they been allowed
free play, would have brought about a solution…
In June 1957 the chairman of the Near Eastern Sub-Committee of the United States Senate
Foreign Relations Committee reported at the end of an illuminating survey:
“The fact is that the Arab States have for ten years used the Palestinian refugees as political
hostages in their struggle with Israel. While Arab delegates in the United Nations have
condemned the plight of their brothers in the refugee camps, nothing has been done to
assist them in a practical way lest political leverage against Israel be lost.”
Throughout the 1950s, despite its unique character and the Arab opposition to the concept of
resettlement, UNRWA continually put forward additional plans to resettle and rehabilitate the
Palestinian Arab refugees. Like the 1952 plan, these were also rejected by the Arab countries,
individually and through the Arab League. By 1959, UNRWA
was obliged to report that its rehabilitation fund, created in
“It is painfully evident 1950 to provide homes and jobs for Palestinian Arab refugees
that this refugee problem outside the camps, had been boycotted by the Arabs. The fund
had set a goal of using $250 million to achieve its purposes,
has been artificially
maintained for political but after three years only $7 million had been spent, and a
motives against all the further $28 million lay unused in the fund. Thereafter, a small
part of the money was used on agricultural development; the
economic, social and
rest went to augment UNRWA’s general reserves.
cultural forces which, had
they been allowed free
play, would have brought
about a solution…”
Various researchers who were politically independent and
professional in their approach have from the very outset
proposed a number of programs for the integration and
absorption of most Arab refugees into the countries in which
Abba Eban
they were currently residing. A European research team which
dealt with various migration problems throughout the world
concluded, at the end of the 1950s, that the only logical solution to the problem was to divide up
the refugees and settle them in the Arab lands.9 At an international conference convened in Geneva
in 1957 with the participation of seventy-two international organizations that dealt with refugee
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
17
Arab delegates comparing notes in the 1970s. For decades the United Nations has served to advance the Arab cause
and prepetuate the misery of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Photo: Israel Government Press Office/Moshe Milner
problems around the world, Dr. Alpen Ross, the adviser on refugee affairs to the World Council of
Christian Churches, stated:
Without the political aspect, the Arab refugee problem would have been the easiest to solve
by integration... the Arab refugees – in their faith, language, race, and social organization –
are no different than the other [Arabs] in their countries.10
But the UN simply ignored expert opinion. Adopting the Arab position, it built a bureaucratic
monster without precedent in dealing with humanitarian problems. UNRWA became a massive
apparatus, with a vast number of employees and a huge budget. Its primary purpose has shifted
from humanitarian work to perpetuating and intensifying the Palestinian Arab refugee problem
while ensuring that the refugees remain in their camps. Over time it become clear that the United
Nations was indirectly responsible for fostering terror when the refugee camps came to serve as
hothouses for terrorists — and even as actual bases for the training of PLO terrorist units. In the
1980s it became clear that, in practice, UNRWA as an institution had become more dependent
on the Palestinian Arabs than the Palestinian Arabs were dependent on UNRWA. In June 1982,
when the Israeli Defense Forces entered Lebanon, it was conclusively demonstrated that the
terrorist organizations had taken over the UNRWA camps in southern Lebanon. This was known
to intelligence sources earlier, and rumors had even circulated about it in the press. But the
rumors took on a new dimension when in one camp after another a gigantic, well-organized
terrorist network was uncovered, all of which had been operating under United Nations auspices.
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
18
It is interesting that the Lebanese ambassador to the UN, Edward Ghonra, had warned of
this as early as the autumn of 1976, in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim.
Waldheim, at the ambassador’s request, circulated the document among all the member states as
an official UN publication. The ambassador described in detail “the constant Palestinian
intervention in internal affairs of Lebanon and the intolerable encroachment on its sovereignty.”
The PLO did not respect the many accords that had been concluded with them to limit their
presence and military activities in Lebanon. Instead, Ghonra continued:
The Palestinians acted as if they were a state within the State of Lebanon, flagrantly defying
the laws of the land and abusing the hospitality of its people, ... The PLO steadily increased
the influx of arms into Lebanon ... They transformed most, if not all, of the refugee camps
into military bastions around our major cities, in the heart of our commercial and industrial
centers, and in the vicinity of large civilian conglomerations.
At the same time, the Lebanese ambassador enclosed a copy of a letter from his Deputy Prime
Minister to the nonaligned summit meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in which he complained that
the Palestinian Arabs violated the agreement signed with the Lebanese government in 1969,
brought heavy weapons to the camps, and took over the UNRWA offices within the camps.11
The transfer of control in the camps in southern Lebanon from the UNRWA to the PLO
was an open secret obvious to everyone who visited them. The entire UNRWA apparatus,
including some 20,000 employees, was under PLO control,
except for a few dozen members of the “international team.”12
The camps that flew the In reality, UNRWA was entirely run by PLO men, who had
sole control of the camps. As early as 18 June 1979, the New
United Nations flag
were to all intents and York Times reported that PLO terrorists controlled three
purposes military bases UNRWA refugee camps in southern Lebanon. Given this fact,
it is irrelevant how much of the annual UNRWA budget
run by the PLO
reached PLO hands. What is significant is that when the PLO
took over these camps, the United Nations essentially gave it
a major tool which could be and was easily used in recruiting terrorists, and in providing them
with military training and for political indoctrination. The camps that flew the United Nations
flag were to all intents and purposes military bases run by the PLO.
Only in 1982, after the Israel Defense Forces had entered Lebanon, were senior UN
officials in UNRWA willing to admit how much the agency had aided in encouraging PLO
terrorism. In October 1982, UNRWA released a comprehensive report, which described in great
detail how the “educational” institution at Sibliun near Beirut, which was under UNRWA
supervision, was in reality a training base for PLO terrorists. This report noted that for the
previous two years the camp had been under the total control of the PLO which, completely
contrary to UNRWA’s official policy, had turned it into a military installation complete with arms
warehouses, and that it had been used in supplying military training in the use of weapons and
explosives to the members of the camp.13
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
19
Debate on rights and numbers
On 22 November 1967 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, which
formed the terms of reference for the mission of Ambassador Gunnar Jarring. The resolution
established provisions and principles that it was hoped would lead to an agreement. Historically,
Resolution 242, together with Security Council Resolution 338, which followed the Yom Kippur
War (22 October 1973), became the cornerstone of the peace process in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Resolution 338 basically reaffirmed Resolution 242 with the significant addition of its call for
immediate “negotiations [to] start between the parties
concerned under appropriate auspices.” It is of great
significance that in Resolution 242, which puts forward
the principles for peace on issues such as sovereignty,
territorial integrity, freedom of navigation, etc., the
reference to refugees was ambiguous – through the
negotiations, the parties were to find a framework “[f]or
achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.” The
Resolution does not define who the refugees are (Arabs
or Jews) and does not specify the method of settlement.
Until 1967, the Palestinian Arabs did not object
when their cause was defined as a refugee problem.
However, after the rise of the PLO on the Arab and
international political scene, and after the Six Day War,
their position changed significantly. For many years after
1967 the Palestinians refused to accept Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as others, since they
referred to the Palestinian problem as a refugee problem
rather than as an issue of self-determination and
legitimate national rights. The military arm of the PLO,
Al Fatah, categorically rejected 242 and the Jarring
Mission since it “ignores the national rights of the
Palestinian people – failing to mention its existence.”14
An infant in an UNRWA clinic in the Baka’a
Refugee Camp in Jordan in 1977. Photo:
CORBIS/Owen Franken
Debates in the UN indicate that the parties not only dispute the causes and the
circumstances of the refugee problem, but that they also disagree on the numbers. Estimates of
the number of 1948–1949 Arab refugees vary between 400,000 (Israeli sources), 540,000
(UNRWA sources) and up to 1,000,000 or more (according to Palestinian Arab sources).
Following the 1967 war the number of refugees increased by about 300,000 displaced Palestinian
Arabs who fled the West Bank and Gaza. About one-third of these were 1948 refugees, and were
thus now classified as “double refugees.”
An Israeli study published in 1993 concluded that the data published by Arab and
UNRWA sources about the refugees is often misleading. The author, Moshe Efrat, states that the
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
20
Children – the cherished treasure of every nation – are
cruelly exploited in the Arab struggle against Israel. Top:
Young boy ready for war. An 8-year old known as “Le
Monstre” at a training camp of the PLO in Jordan, 1968.
Photo: CORBIS/Leif Skoogfors. Left: Palestinian
youngster dressed as a suicide bomber at a Hamas rally at
Nablus University, 2000. Photo: Reuters/CORBIS
total number of Palestinian Arab refugees in
June 1990 in all host countries, excluding
Israel, was only about 1.2 million, and, with
the territories and the eastern part of
Jerusalem, 540,000 more. This was far less
than the 2.4 million reported by UNRWA.
Efrat also notes that on the whole, with the
exception of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian
refugees are steadily being integrated into the
Arab host countries, where they constitute a
small percentage of the population.15
It is clear that UN attitudes and
UNRWA practices played a major role in
perpetuating the Palestinian Arab refugee
problem. In a publication by the American
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
21
E
Society of International Law, Professor Louise W. Holborn explained that the startling increase
in the number of refugees (from 540,000 in 1948 to 1,344,570 by May 1967) is closely related
to changes in the working definitions of UNRWA. In 1988 the approximate number of refugees
according to UNRWA was 2,125,000. In addition to the increase, UNRWA provided a typical
example of how “being a refugee” has become institutionalized. Even if refugees found adequate
economic opportunities, they became reluctant to turn in their UNRWA cards. There were also
false registrations and concealment of family deaths.16 In 1995 the annual UNRWA report spoke
of 3.2 million registered Palestinian refugees. In 2002, UNRWA listed almost 4 million registered
Palestinian refugees: 1,263,000 in 59 refugee camps while the rest are in the environs of the
camps, and entitled to UNRWA services. It should be noted that many of these camps are in
reality urban neighborhoods composed of solidly constructed buildings, not tents.
Palestinian Arab Refugees: Where are they?
Distribution as of June 2000
UN Registered
Refugees
%
of total
1,570,192
42
280,191
23
West Bank
583,009
16
157,676
13
Gaza
824,622
22
451,186
37
Lebanon
376,472
10
210,715
18
Syria
383,199
10
111,712
9
3,737,494
100
1,211,480
100
Jordan
Total:
Living in
camps
%
of total
Source: UNRWA
Oslo, the refugees and the UN
The multilateral Refugee Working Group (RWG) was established by the Madrid Peace
Conference in October 1991 and convened in Moscow in January 1992. Thirty-eight delegations
were represented in the RWG, including observers from the European Community and the
United Nations. This was additional testimony – as in the overall peace process – to the failure of
the United Nations to provide auspices for serious talks on the refugee problem. However, the
Arabs and especially the Palestinian Arabs continued their efforts “to make the RWG into a
replica of UN General Assembly political debates.”17
The Oslo agreements and the Declaration of Principles (DOP) of 13 September 1993 refer
to the Palestinian refugees/displaced persons only as one of the subjects to be negotiated in
connection with the final status talks. In the General Assembly, however, discussion of the
refugee problem under the item on UNRWA did not reflect the political changes between Israel,
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
22
The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin examining the wreckage of a bus blown up in Ramat Gan in 1995 by a
Palestinian Hamas suicide bomber. Photo: Israel Government Press Office/Avi Ohayon
the Palestinians and the Arab states. In General Assembly debates, the PLO continued to
consistently oppose Israeli and American efforts to delete references to Resolution 194. The
Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995
(Oslo II) could have led to an important change, since it greatly extended the powers of the
Palestinian Authority (PA) by granting the PA control over the majority of Palestinian Arabs,
including refugees, in the West Bank and the Jerusalem environs. Under this agreement the PA
began to govern at least one-thirds of all UNRWA-registered refugees.
Several reports published during the Oslo peace process period challenged the traditional
UN-UNRWA thinking and working procedure. Reports by the European Union (EU) and the
Norwegian Trade Union Center for Social Science Research clarified that long-range solutions to
the refugee problem largely depend on better treatment of the refugees by the Arab host
countries. The report by the EU also indicated that assistance to the Palestinian refugees on the
West Bank is undergoing “a profound transformation” in helping to integrate refugees and nonrefugees. The EU report, which challenged certain concepts and vested interests, aroused
Palestinian protest and reservations by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. Again, this UNPLO coalition felt threatened, particularly by the idea of solving the refugee problem through
integration into host countries. Dr. Elias Sanbar, head of the Palestinian delegation, to the
European Union, noted that the EU report failed “to address in any way the options of return
and compensation .... We are a people, not a series of geographical subentities.”18
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
23
Furthermore, the spirit and the letter of the Oslo agreements are not reflected in the
educational system run by UNRWA. Israel’s name does not appear on any of the maps in the
schools and Israeli cities are referred to only by names in Arabic. The textbooks do not mention
peace at all, and Jihad – war against Israel in its most extreme form – is extolled and glorified. By
encouraging the “right of return” in their school curriculum and in statements made by their
officials, UNRWA is taking a clear political stand. Peter Hansen, the Commissioner-General of
UNRWA, has rejected all discussions on resettling and rehabilitating the refugees. In 1999, he
said that “[t]he Palestinian refugees will not be compromising on their right of return. This is
basic to their perception of themselves and to their history.”
In April 2002, following the horrifying massacre at a Passover seder at Netanya’s Park
Hotel by a Palestinian Arab suicide bomber who killed 29, the Israeli Defense Forces entered the
UNRWA refugee camp of Jenin. The “Fatah,” the military arm of the PLO, called the camp the
“suicide [bomber] capital…a place with an exceptional presence of fighters that nothing can beat
them[sic.]; nothing bothers them.” Over several days of fighting in the camp, 23 Israeli soldiers
and 52 Palestinian Arabs were killed. Before learning the facts, UNRWA Commissioner-General
Hansen joined the Palestinian propaganda machine by accusing Israel of perpetrating a
The remains of the dining room of the Park Hotel in Netanya, venue of a Passover seder in which 29 Israelis fell victim
to a Palestinian Arab suicide bomber from the refugee camp in Jenin in April, 2002. Photo: Israel Government Press
Office/Noam Sharon
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
24
Israeli troops searching for terrorists among the booby-trapped houses in the Jenin refugee camp in the wake of the
seder bombing. Photo: Israel Government Press Office
“That the IDF
encountered heavy
Palestinian resistance is not
in question. Nor is the fact
that Palestinian militants
in the camp, as they did
elsewhere, adopted methods
which constitute breaches
of international law”
“massacre” of hundreds and perhaps thousands of
Palestinians. In dozens of interviews regarding Jenin,
Hansen told the media: “This is pure hell…it is not any
exaggeration to call this a massacre. Previously I have
abstained to use the word, but as I have seen it, I really
cannot call it anything else… Jenin camp residents have
lived through a human catastrophe.”19
When the dust settled, it became quite evident that
there was no massacre. The battle took place in a very small
section of the camp where almost all the houses and
buildings were booby-trapped and with Palestinian Arab
Kofi Annan
gunmen shooting at the Israeli forces from windows,
sometimes using civilians – women and children – as human shields.
After verifying the facts, many in the international media, human rights organizations, and
even the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, himself acknowledged that there had been no
“massacre,” but only that fierce fighting had taken place between hundreds of armed Palestinian
Arabs and the Israeli forces. In his report from July 30, 2002, Annan confirmed that:
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
25
According to both Palestinian and Israeli observers, the Jenin camp had, by April 2002,
some 200 armed men from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Tanzim, Palestinian Islamic Jihad
and Hamas who operated from the camp…That the IDF encountered heavy Palestinian
resistance is not in question. Nor is the fact that Palestinian militants in the camp, as they
did elsewhere, adopted methods which constitute breaches of international law.
Hansen has yet to retract his defamatory accusations against the IDF, and in essense, his
responsibility in helping spread a modern version of the blood libel. The fact that Hansen has yet
to condemn suicide bombings as a crime against humanity (as have leading human rights groups
such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) speaks volumes about the UNRWA
Commissioner-General’s own objectivity.
Since April 2002, the world has learned more about terrorist activity in the UNRWA
refugee camps. In the words of the chief legal counsel of the Israeli Foreign Ministry: “Bombmaking, indoctrination, recruiting, and dispatching of suicide bombers all are centered in the
camps.” To claim that UNRWA was unaware of these activities is simply unbelievable.
The UN and UNRWA as an obstacle to peace
In his report to the General Assembly in February 1957, then UNRWA Commissioner General,
Henry R. Labouisse, stated that little change had occurred in the refugee situation since 1949.
The director explained:
The reason lies in the realm of politics and in deep-seated human emotions – it does not
lie simply in the field of economics. UNRWA can enable some hundreds of refugees to
become self-supporting each year through small agricultural development projects, grants
to establish small businesses and the like, but it cannot overcome the fact that the refugees
as a whole insist upon the choice provided for them in the General Assembly Resolution
194, that is, repatriation or compensation.
As stated in the 1957 UNRWA report, the United Nations policy towards the refugee
problem “lies in the realm of politics.” In the January 1996 Palestine Council elections in the
territories, the refugee issue was very much a part of the campaign. Many of the candidates
pledged to work for the refugees and some of them were elected. In retrospect, it is clear that
these were empty promises.
The UNRWA system is deeply flawed and largely responsible for corrupting the Palestinian
Arab leadership who have never faced the real concerns of the refugees but only tried to exploit
them for their own political-financial interest. Although there are certainly people of goodwill
working for UNRWA, the good humanitarian work provided by UNRWA cannot atone for the
destructive role that the agency plays both in the short and long term. The way UNRWA’s
mandate is defined plays into the hands of militants and armed groups in the camps. The
literature on humanitarian aid refers to this situation as a “refugee-warrior” community, which
transforms the camps into military bastions whose populations seek to fight and destabilize their
T H E
R E F U G E E
26
C O N U N D R U M
neighbors. Instead of reducing suffering, it fuels violence and exacerbates human misery. Indeed,
the inherent link between refugee camps and terror in general was recognized by the UN Security
Council in 1998 when, in a discussion about refugees in Africa, it affirmed the “unacceptability
of using refugee camps… to achieve military purposes.” This was followed by a call from Secretary
General Kofi Annan urging that “refugee camps… be kept free of any military presence or
equipment.” This principle was never applied to the camps of UNRWA – areas where a terrorist
network has taken root, where suicide-bomb belts are prepared, car bombs are built and terrorists
are trained.
The refugees issue is part of a standing political problem between Israel and the
Palestinians. The call for the “right of return” reflects the unwillingness of the PLO to find a
compromise for a realistic settlement. Professor Ruth Lapidoth, an expert in international law,
has written that the language of Resolution 194 does not imply a clear “right of return” for the
Palestinians, and even limits the return of Palestinians to those who wish to live peaceably with
Israel.20 In recent months observers in the American media and members of Congress have asked
bluntly: “What exactly is the UN doing in its refugee camps with our money?” With an annual
budget exceeding $300 million, more than one-fourth of which comes from the American
taxpayer, this has become a major policy issue with enormous economic implications.
Members of Congress
have asked bluntly:
“What exactly is the UN
doing in its refugee
camps with our money?”
Yasir Arafat presents an award to UNRWA Commissioner Peter Hansen in Ramallah, November 2002.
Photo: Reuters/Osama Silwadi
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
27
A Palestinian woman dances with gunmen during a demonstration in Ramallah, 2001. Photo: Reuters/CORBIS
In order to maintain relevancy, the UN and UNRWA must redefine and readjust their
roles. On several occasions the PLO has demonstrated that under certain political circumstances,
it can modify its interpretations of UN resolutions. In 1988 the Palestinian National Council
indicated that “a solution to the Palestine refugee problem [can be reached] in accordance with
United Nations resolutions.”21 The explosive issue of the “right of return” cannot be left in
limbo, looming over every peace initiative. The international community has allowed the Arabs
to pursue their deliberate and cyncial scheme for too long. They have been encouraged to
perpetuate the misery in the camps and to reject resettlement and rehabilitation. This logic must
be turned on its head, and the refugees’ resettlement must precede final political settlements. A
process of rehabilitation of refugees should be viewed as a major “confidence-building” measure
between the parties. A major reform of UNRWA and the creation of a new machinery which will
promote concrete measures to resettle and rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees should be a
prerequisite to any peace process. Only this will prove that the process leading to the
establishment of a Palestinian Arab State is not a prelude to a full implementation of the “right
of return,” with the aim of completely replacing the State of Israel. Only a dramatic shift in the
treatment of the refugees will reflect a real change of heart on the part of the Arabs and will signal
the abandonment of the refugee issue as a political-military device.
The challenge for the UN now is to untie the Gordian knot which it has created between
UNRWA, the Palestinian Arab refugees and the rhetoric of the Palestinian Arab leadership. For the
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
28
refugees, this warped connection is reflected in their psychological and social dependency on their
refugee status. For the leadership, the untying of the knot will require the abandonment of UN
polemics aimed at delegitimizing Israel, and a focus on bilateral negotiations with Israel regarding
a feasible and realistic settlement. It remains to be seen whether the UN can act as a facilitator in
conflict resolution; if not, it will remain nothing more than an irrelevant diplomatic club.
Notes
1.
Abcnews.go.com/transcript: Israeli TV interviews Clinton, July 27, 2000.
2.
The New York Times, June 3, 2003.
3.
The Wall Street Journal Online, June 5, 2003.
4.
“The Palestinian Refugee,” Factfiles, PLO, Ramallah, 2000, p.22.
5.
Avi Beker, The United Nations and Israel – From Recognition to Reprehension (Lexington, MA, Lexington Books,
1988).
6.
“Israel and the United Nations: Report by a Study Group set up by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem” (New
York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1954), p. 94. For an extensive study of the Commission’s
work, see David P. Forsythe, United Nations Peacemaking: The Conciliation Commission for Palestine (Baltimore,
MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972).
7.
“The refugee issue”, background paper, State of Israel Government Press Office, October 1994.
8.
Based on Beker, op. cit., pp. 50–51. For a more specific discussion of UNRWA, see Beker, “Perpetuating The
Tragedy: The United Nations and the Palestinian Refugees” in Malka Hillel Shulewitz (ed.), The Forgotten
Million: The Modern Jewish Exodus From Arab Lands (London: Kassel, 1999) pp.142–152.
9.
F. Th. Withkamp, “The Refugee problem in the Middle East,” Bulletin of the Research Group for European
Migration Problems. Vol. 5, January–March 1957, pp. 4–4 7.
10.
Walter Eytan, The First Ten Years: A Diplomatic History of Israel (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1958), p. 51.
11.
Letter from the Lebanese ambassador to the United Nations, Edward Ghonra, to Secretary-General Kurt
Waldheim, 17 October 1976. General-Assembly Official Records, A/31/179.
12.
“How the UN aids Marxist Guerilla Group,” background report of the United Nations Assessment Project Study
(Washington, DC. Heritage Foundation, April 1982), p. 6.
13.
“PLO used a UN Facility to Train Guerillas,” International Herald Tribune, 28 October 1982.
14.
Walter Laqueur, The Israel-Arab Reader (3rd ed., Toronto, Benton, 1969), p. 372.
15.
Moshe Efrat, “Palestinian Refugees; the Dynamics of Economic Integration in Host Countries,” Israeli
International Institute for Applied Economic Policy Review, (Tel Aviv, 1993).
16.
Louise W. Holborn, “The Palestine Arab refugee problem”, in John Norton Moore (ed.), The Arab-Israeli
Conflict, sponsored by the American Society of International Law (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1977),
pp. 158–159.
17.
Shamay Cahana, Differing and Converging Views on Solving the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Jerusalem, Leonard
Davis Institute of the Hebrew University, 1996), p. 8.
18.
Ibid., pp. 20–22.
19.
Hansen was quoted all over the world. See for instance: The Guardian, April 21, 2002, Politken (Copenhagen),
April 19, 2002, Jyllaads Posten (Denmark), April 19, 2002.
20.
Ruth Lapidoth, “The Right of Return in International Law, with Special Reference to the Palestinian Refugees,”
Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 16 (Tel Aviv University, 1986), p. 12.
21.
See Shlomo Gazit, “The Problem of the Palestinian Refugees” [Hebrew] (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel
Aviv University, 1994).
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
29
Annex:
“The Forgotten Exodus” vs. “The Perpetuated Tragedy”
Half a century has passed since the Jews were expelled en masse from the Arab states. In that time,
nearly one million Jewish refugees were absorbed (without international assistance) by Israel and
various Diaspora Jewish communities. For nearly as long, the World Jewish Congress has raised the
issue of these refugees before governments and in various international fora. The double standard that
the UN has consistently applied to the Middle East conflict has been no less evident in its relation to
this aspect of the refugee issue. The UN continues to deny the existence of two population
movements in the years around 1948. It chose, and continues to choose, to focus exclusively on the
Palestinian Arab refugees. For too long the story of Jewish refugees has been largely ignored. For
several years, the World Jewish Congress has been focusing on what it calls the “Forgotten Exodus”
-- the plight of Jews from Arab countries. In the last decade it has raised the issue at its executive
meetings and it has published several studies on the subject. In the last two years, the WJC has held
conferences on this issue in Paris, Montreal, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and
Providence, RI. Similar symposia are planned for London, Chicago, Denver, Toronto, Miami and
New York. Furthermore, in a sign that this issue is finally receiving the attention it deserves, the
United States Congress recently held an open briefing on the subject. On June 5, 2003, the House
International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East addressed the “rapid and nearly complete
emigration of Jews from Arab countries within the past fifty years, and its impact on our current effort
to bring peace to the region,” in the words of Subcommittee Chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (RFL). It was the first time the US Congress held a public meeting on the issue. Responding to
statements by WJC experts on the “Forgotten Exodus,” Rep. William J. Janklow (R-SD) remarked
that the events that surrounded the Jews’ flight recalled Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, and
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) pointed out that more Jews than Palestinians were displaced – by a
margin of 3:2 – in the years surrounding the birth of the State of Israel. The committee heard
testimony from Dr. Avi Beker, WJC Secretary General, Carole Basri, adjunct professor of the
University of Pennsylvania Law School and Sami Totah who described his escape from Syria.
Yet, while the story of Jewish refugees from Arab lands has been largely overlooked, the plight
of Arab refugees is known to all. This is due in large part to the refusal of the United Nations and
of UNRWA to implement a resettlement program for the Arab refugees. For over a year the World
Jewish Congress has urged that UNRWA activities be closely monitored and, if necessary, reformed.
In recent years, and especially as it became ever more clear that UNRWA camps had been
transformed into terror bases, the WJC launched an international campaign to highlight the abuse
of UNRWA and to call for a full reform and accounting of the UN agency. Members of the US
Congress have joined the WJC in this call, and this year the House Committee on International
Relations has inserted language into the Foreign Aid Authorization bill calling for a thorough probe
into UNRWA and its use of American funds. The inclusion of the language is an expression of
mounting US Congressional concern regarding the conduct and administration of this bloated UN
agency.
T H E
R E F U G E E
30
C O N U N D R U M
Dr. Avi Becker
President
World Jewish Congress
Washington, D.C.
Dear Friends,
I want to thank Dr. Avi Becker of the World Jewish Congress, as well as the Jewish Community
Council of Greater Washington, the American Sephardic Association, and the Magen David Sephardic
Congregation for inviting me to “the Forgotten Exodus: Pursuing Justice for Jews from Arab Counties.”
Unfortunately, my schedule does not permit me to be with you today as you address the important issue
of Jewish emigration and refugees from Arab countries within the past fifty years.
The legacy of the Sephardim is a dynamic frequently overlooked when addressing the ArabIsraeli conflict. At various times throughout history, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative
peace and thrive culturally and economically. However, the position of the Jews was never secure, and
changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death.
The World War II era was one such time period. Between 1941 and 1948 there were numerous
outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Southern Arabia, and North Africa, in which
hundreds of Jews were killed or injured, while far greater numbers found their work places sacked and
their houses destroyed, leaving them homeless and destitute. In the wake of the 1948 Israeli victory,
Arab reprisals fell largely on the Jewish communities of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, and North
Africa resulting in a massive migration of Jews from these countries. In sum, over 800,000 Sephardic
Jews were forced to flee.
It is critical that this history be known and that the suffering of the Sephardim be fully addressed.
I commend you for convening this important conference and look forward to working closely with you in
the future.
Sincerely,
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair
Subcommittee on Middle East
and Central Asia
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 7, 2003
U
T
31
E
CONTACT: Jennifer Cannata
(202) 225-4671
Jennifer Cannata@mail.house.gov
PALLONE SPEAKS ON NEED TO
RECOGNIZE JEWISH REFUGEES
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) gave the following statement on the floor of the House
of Representatives this evening regarding the need to recognize the
forgotten exodus of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
“Mr. Speaker, as Israel and Palestine take steps toward peace and as President Bush and the State
Department release the “Road Map” for peace in the Middle East, I would like to drawn attention
to an important issue in the peace process.
“The issue of refugees is widely regarded as one of the most contentious aspects of the ArabIsraeli dispute. However, up until now, the debate has focused primarily on the plight of
Palestinian refugees and the question of right of return. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that future
peace negotiations and discussions, specifically on the rights of refugees, address both sides of
the issue —- Arab and Jewish.
“Many people do not realize that during the years following the establishment of the state of
Israel, more Jews than Arabs became refugees. It is estimated that over 900,000 Jews were
stripped of their property and expelled from Arab nations. Approximately 600,000 refugees
were absorbed and assimilated by Israel and the remaining 300,000 fled to other nations,
including the United States and Canada.
“Jews in Arab nations were forced to forfeit the lives they had worked so hard to achieve — to
abandon their homes and livelihoods. They had to turn their backs on centuries of Jewish
history, culture and community. They had to leave behind schools, synagogues, hospitals and
businesses — all without compensation and all confiscated by the various Arab governments.
“At a time when Jews faced severe persecution, economic deprivation, discrimination and
expulsion from Arab lands — Jews turned to Israel as a place to begin their lives anew. Israel
opened her arms and welcomed the refugees, granting Arab Jews citizenship and welcoming
them into Israeli society.
“However, the fact that Israel chose to absorb and assimilate the refugees from Arab nations does
not lessen the fact that they were all expelled or otherwise compelled to leave their homelands.
T H E
R E F U G E E
32
C O N U N D R U M
“I have personally spoken with several of my colleague in Congress about this often forgotten
aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They agree on the importance of holding a
Congressional hearing on this subject — the need to educate members of Congress and to ensure
that they and the public are informed of the issues at stake and the sacrifices made by Jews from
Arab lands when they were forced to leave their homes and countries.
“Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot continue to be silent on the plight of Jewish refugees. It is
critical that Congress address this issue while the refugees are still alive and while we can still
address their rights as victims. By doing so, we can ensure that justice for Jewish refugees
assumes its rightful place in the debate.”
* At the WJC Forgotten Exodus conference in Washington D.C. on April 6, 2003, Congressman
Pallone, declared that he is “ready to be a champion of the WJC campaign,” and said he would
work to ensure that the story of the Jews from Arab lands is part of the peace process
negotiations.
(Photo: D. Bloomfield)
(Photo: JIMENA)
(Photo: JIMENA)
(Photo: Phil Birnbaum/CJC)
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
33
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
34
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
35
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
36
W
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
37
T H E
R E F U G E E
C O N U N D R U M
Adopted by the House International Relations Committee (June 2003):
Sense of the Congress Concerning United States
Assistance to Palestinian Refugees
The Congress—
(1)
recognizes the importance of United States humanitarian assistance to Palestinian
refugees as an essential component to the peace process in the Middle East;
(2)
acknowledges the hardships endured by many innocent Palestinian refugees in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip and in other neighboring countries;
(3)
notes that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is the
international body that seeks to find “lasting solutions” to the plight of refugees
throughout the world, with the sole exception of the Palestinians, for whose exclusive
benefit a special agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), was
established in 1950 and which makes no effort to permanently resettle Palestinian
refugees, even those who reside under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, in
order to ensure the perpetuation of the problem of Palestinian refugees;
(4)
recognizes that the United States has been the world’s leading donor to UNRWA, having
provided over $2,500,000,000 to UNRWA since 1950, including the provision of
$110,000,000, in fiscal year 2002, and that such organization has provided important
humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people;
(5)
notes that the United States contribution to UNRWA is nearly 10 times that of the entire
Arab world, and calls on Arab states to assume a greater share of the burden for financing
UNRWA;
(6)
expresses its outrage over credible reports that UNRWA facilities have been used for
terrorist training and bases for terrorist operations, with little attempt by the UNRWA to
stop or oppose such attacks or alert relevant law enforcement authorities about such
terrorist activities;
(7)
expresses deep concern over the textbooks and educational materials used in the
UNRWA educational system that promote anti-Semitism, denial of the existence and the
right to exist of the state of Israel, and exacerbate stereotypes and tensions between the
Palestinians and Israelis;
38
W
(8)
J
C
I
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
strongly urges the Secretary General of the United Nations to immediately take steps to
comprehensively reform the UNRWA so that it actively works to oppose terrorist attacks
and actively works to promote reconciliation and understanding between the Israelis and
Palestinians;
(9)
strongly urges UNRWA to meet the requirements, in letter and spirit, of section 301(c)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including by comprehensively ensuring that no
UNRWA assistance is rendered to anyone who has been involved with terrorism at any
time and that all UNRWA beneficiaries be informed at the earliest possible time, and at
regular intervals thereafter, that anyone involved with terrorism thereafter will be
ineligible for UNRWA benefits;
(10) strongly urges the Secretary of State to make UNRWA reforms a priority at the United
Nations by actively campaigning within the United Nations to support such reforms,
including comprehensive and independently verifiable audits of UNRWA activities and
educational reform that would remove from the curriculum all textbooks and educational
materials that promote hatred of Jews and Israel and denial of Israel’s right to exist and
replace them with teaching materials that promote Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation and
mutual understanding; and
(11) notes the General Accounting Office (GAO) audit required by section 580 of the FY 2003
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-7), and strongly encourages the
GAO to conduct, as part of this audit, an investigation and inspection of all recent United
States assistance to UNRWA to ensure that taxpayer funds are being spent effectively and
are not directly or indirectly supporting terrorism, anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish teachings,
or the glorification or incitement of violence.
39
Institute of the
World Jewish Congress
Dedicated to the study and analysis of current Jewish affairs
World Jewish Congress
President
Edgar M. Bronfman
Chairman of the Governing Board
Israel Singer
Secretary General
Dr. Avi Beker
Chairman of the Executive
Mendel Kaplan
Senior Vice Presidents
Isi Leibler
Kalman Sultanik
Treasurer
Ronald Lauder
Academic Advisory Board
Prof. Sergio Della Pergola (Israel)
Prof. Jonathan Sarna (USA)
Prof. Shmuel Trigano (France)
Institute Staff
Head of the Institute:
Dr. Avi Beker
Director of Research, WJC:
Dr. Laurence Weinbaum
Editor of Gesher (Hebrew Journal
of Jewish Affairs):
Dr. Shlomo Shafir
Associate Editor and Editor of Batfutsot
(Hebrew Bulletin on Jewish Life in the Diaspora):
Simona Kedmi
Associate Editors:
Penina Goldstein
Estee Yaari
Copy Editor (English):
Hella Moritz
Copy Editor (Hebrew):
Elisheva May
Typesetting and Administration:
Hana Kimche
Current Jewish Topics
Policy Dispatches
Brief and timely analyses of issues of immediate concern. All Policy Dispatches,
including 1–67, are available at our internet site, www.wjc.org.il
68. International Law: Today’s Weapon of Choice for Israel’s Enemies (October 2001)
69. Is the Vatican Retreating from Its Policy of Openness? The Holocaust Historians’ Panel Suspends its Work as the
Vatican Denies Access to More Documents (October 2001)
70. Terror as a World Problem: New Challenges to Hasbara (October 2001)
71. Jewish Education in the Diaspora: 2001 Update (October 2001)
72. Moral and Material Restitution: A Summary Report – More Historical Commissions and National Soul Searching
(October 2001)
73. The Forgotten Exodus: The Flight of Jews from Arab Lands (December 2001)
74. The “Swamps” That Breed Terrorism: The Lack of Democracy in the Arab World as a Cause of Instability and
Terrorism (February 2002)
75. Antisemitism in Western Europe: New-Found Acceptance of the Blithe Hatred of Jews (February 2002)
76. Defining the Parameters of Judaism in the Jewish State: Reassessing the relationship between Synagogue and
State (March 2002)
77. The “New Antisemitism” – A haunting reawakening of anti-Jewish violence stirs memories of the Holocaust
(April 2002)
78. Misinformation and Vitriol: The media and Israel’s war against terrorism (April 2002)
79. The International Criminal Court and Politicized Universal Jurisdiction – Will international tribunals be used to
attack Israel? (April 2002)
80. The Architecture of Bigotry: A respected British journal becomes a mouthpiece of antisemitic canon (June 2002)
81. The End of Circumspection: Germany’s critical approach to Israel and the Jews (July 2002)
82. A New Age for Jewish Day Schools? The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Constitutionality of School Vouchers
(July 2002)
83. Radical Islam: A united continent faces a burgeoning threat to its stability (September 2002)
84. Confrontation on Campus: Bracing for renewed assaults on the integrity of Jews and the Jewish State (September
2002)
85. “Because of the merit of righteous women…” Women in contemporary Jewish Orthodoxy (September 2002)
86. “Amid the Ruins, the Grisly Evidence of…” a New Blood Libel: The myth of the Jenin massacre and the
European media (September 2002)
87. Antisemitism Egyptian-Style: The true face of the “honest broker” (September 2002)
88. “A Population and Property Transfer”: The forgotten exodus of the Jews from Arab Lands (September 2002)
89. Hungarian Jewry: A better ambience (December 2002)
90. Whither Venezuelan Jewry: A Community Caught in the Throes of Civil Strife February 2003)
91. Jewish Catholic Relations: Developments and Challenges (March 2003)
92. The “New Antisemitism”: A volatile mix of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hostility (March 2003)
93. The UN Commission on Human Rights: Continuing the Slide to Irrelevance (April 2003)
94. The Post-Saddam Era: The power of the Protocols and the prospects for peace (May 2003)
Policy Studies
Comprehensive examination of topics in Jewish Affairs
1.
Righting an Historic Wrong: Restitution of Jewish Property
in Central and East Europe
Laurence Weinbaum
2-3. Russian Jewry in Flux: Two Reports – on Communal Life
and on Antisemitism
Ephraim Tabory & Stefani Hoffman
4.
Environmental Protection: A Jewish Perspective
Nahum Rakover
5.
Reinventing World Jewry: Summary and Recommendations
(with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
Daniel Elazar
6.
Out of the Ashes: The Vicissititudes of the New German Jewry
Y. Michal Bodemann
7.
The Jewish-Moslem Dialogue and the Question of Jerusalem
Abdul Hadi Palazzi
8.
The Fate of Stolen Jewish Properties:
the Cases of Austria and the Netherlands
Itamar Levin
9.
Unmasking National Myths: Europeans Challenge Their History
Avi Beker
10. Movements of Nazi Gold: Uncovering the Trail
Sidney Zabludoff
11. Sweden and the Shoah: The Untold Chapters
Sven Fredrik Hedin & Göran Elgemyr
12. How European Jewish Communities Can Choose and Plan
Their Own Future
Daniel Elazar & Shmuel Trigano
13. “And It All But Disappeared”: The Nazi Seizure of Jewish Assets
Sidney Zabludoff
14. Polish Jews: A Postscript to the “Final Chapter”?
Laurence Weinbaum
15. Comfortable Disappearance:
Lessons from the Caribbean Jewish Experience
Mordechai Arbell
16. German Assets in Switzerland
Sidney Zabludoff
17. Caught in the Winds of War: Jews in the Former Yugoslavia
Ivan Ceresnjes
18. A Century of Argentinean Jewry: In Search of a New Model
of National Identity
Efraim Zadoff
19. From Revisionism to Holocaust Denial:
David Irving as a Case Study
Roni Stauber
20. Dispersion and Globalization: Jews and the International Economy
Avi Beker
21. Jewish Life Down Under: The Flowering of Australian Jewry
Suzanne D. Rutland
22. The Struggle for Memory in Poland: Auschwitz, Jedwabne
and Beyond
Laurence Weinbaum
23. Judaism and the Environment
(with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
Manfred Gerstenfeld
24. The Double Edged Sword of Integration:
The Jewish Community of Brazil
Nachman Falbel
25. South African Jewry: A Contemporary Portrait
David Saks
26. The Jews of Iraq: A Forgotten Case of Ethnic Cleansing
Carole Basri
Policy Forum
A series on current developments through the eyes of noted authorities and researchers
1.
Jerusalem – Past and Future
Martin Gilbert
2.
The Vatican-Israel Agreement:
A Watershed in Christian-Jewish Relations
Geoffrey Wigoder
3.
The Aftershock of Argentina: Picking up the Pieces
Anthology
4.
The Israel-Diaspora Identity Crisis: A Looming Disaster
(a special essay)
Isi Leibler
5.
Casablanca: Sowing the Seeds of Economic Cooperation
David Kimche
6.
Post-Zionism, Post-Judaism?
Avi Beker & Laurence Weinbaum
7.
Israel’s Long Corridor: Ambiguity and Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Avi Beker
8.
The Worldwide Jihad Movement: Militant Islam Targets the West
Steven Emerson
9.
World Jewry at the Crossroads
Symposium
10. The American Jewish Community’s Crisis of Confidence
Jonathan Sarna
11. State and Religion: Changing the Israeli Status Quo?
Ariel Rosen-Zvi
12. Coming to Terms with the Past:
The Process of Restitution of Jewish Property in Norway
Bjørn Westlie
13. The Sinister Face of “Neutrality”: The Role of Swiss
Financial Institutions in the Plunder of European Jewry
WJC Institute
14. Jewish-Christian Interfaith Relations: Agendas for Tomorrow
Geoffrey Wigoder
15. The Vatican and the Shoah: Purified Memory or
Reincarnated Responsibility
Arieh Doobov
16. The Great Culture Robbery: The Plunder of Jewish-owned Art
Hector Feliciano
17. France Faces its Past: French Jews Face an Uncertain Future
Shmuel Trigano
18. The Renaissance in Kosher Cuisine: From Ethnicity to Universality
Seth L. Wolitz
19. Tikkun Olam: The Phenomenon of the Jewish Radicals in France
during the 1960s and ‘70s
Yair Auron
20. On Unity and Continuity: A New Framework for Jewish Life in
Israel and the Diaspora
Yossi Beilin
21. Is the Dream Ending? Post-Zionism and its Discontents – A Threat
to the Jewish Future
Isi Leibler
22. Confiscated Wealth: The Fate of Jewish Property in Arab Lands
Itamar Levin
23. Jewish Communities in Distress: The Jews of Argentina and Latin
America Face an Uncertain Future
Bernardo Kliksberg
24. The Durban Debacle: An Insider's View of the UN World
Conference Against Racism
Tom Lantos
25. Assimilation and Continuity in the Jewish State –
Three Approaches
Yaron London, Asher Cohen
& Israel Rozen
26. UNRWA, Terror and the Refugee Conundrum:
Perpetuating the Misery
Avi Beker
Periodicals
1.
Dialogues: Discussions between Jews, Christians and Muslims
2.
Gesher: Journal on Jewish Affairs (Hebrew)
3.
Batfutsot: Bulletin on Jewish Life in the Diaspora (Hebrew)
Jewish Communities of the World
The most comprehensive directory
Demography
120 Jewish Communities:
History ◆ Sites ◆ Addresses
250 pages, richly illustrated
◆
◆
Anecdotes
Available at bookstores, or order directly from the publisher:
Lerner Publications Company
241 First Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55401
Fax: 612-332 7615 Customer Service: 800-328 4929
For more information on Institute publications
write, call or e-mail:
Institute of the World Jewish Congress
21 Arlozorov Street, P.O.B. 4293, Jerusalem 91042
Israel
Internet site: http://www.wjc.org.il
Tel: 972-2-563-5261 Fax: 972-2-563-5544
E-mail: wjc@netvision.net.il
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY CMY
K
Ó
ÔÂÎ
Ò¯‚˜‰
Ȅ‰ȉ
ÈÓÏÂÚ‰
Institute
of the
World
Jewish
Congress
Policy Forum No. 26
Ó
ÔÂÎ
Ò¯‚˜‰
Ȅ‰ȉ
ÈÓÏÂÚ‰
Avi Beker
Institute
of the
World
Jewish
Congress
21 Arlozorov St., P.O.B. 4293, Jerusalem 91042†ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È†¨4293 Æ„Æ˙††¨21†·Â¯ÂÊÂϯ‡†ßÁ¯
Fax: 02-5635544†∫Ò˜Ù
Tel: 02-5635261∫ÏË
UNRWA, Terror
and the Refugee
Conundrum:
Perpetuating
the Misery