The real Palestinian refugee problem
By Clifford May, ISRAEL HAYOM
After World War II, the British left India, which was to be partitioned into two independent nations. One would have a Hindu majority, the other a Muslim majority. More than 7 million Muslims moved to the territory that became Pakistan. A similar number of Hindus and Sikhs moved to India. Today, not one remains a refugee.
After World War II, the British left Palestine, which was to be partitioned into two independent nations. One would have a Jewish majority, the other a Muslim majority. About 750,000 Muslims left the territories that became Israel. A similar number of Jews left Arab/Muslim lands. Today, not one of the Jews remains a refugee. But there are still Palestinian refugees — indeed, their numbers have mushroomed to almost 5 million. How is that possible?
Through two mechanisms: A refugee, by definition, lives on foreign soil but for Palestinians the definition has been changed so that a displaced Palestinian on Palestinian soil also receives refugee status. Second, the international organization responsible for resettling refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, was cut out from the start. A new organization was set up exclusively for Palestinians: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. In 1950, UNRWA defined a refugee as someone who had “lost his home and his means of livelihood” during the war launched by Arab/Muslim countries in response to Israel’s declaration of independent statehood. Fifteen years later, UNRWA decided — against objections from the United States — to include as refugees the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who left Israel. And in 1982, UNRWA further extended eligibility to all subsequent generations of descendants — forever.
Under UNRWA’s rules, even if the descendant of a Palestinian refugee has become a citizen of another state, he’s still a refugee. For example, of the 2 million refugees registered in Jordan, all but 167,000 hold Jordanian citizenship. (In fact, approximately 80 percent of Jordan’s population is Palestinian — not surprising since Jordan occupies more than three-fourths of the area historically referred to as Palestine.) By adopting such a policy, UNRWA is flagrantly violating the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which states clearly that a person shall cease to be considered a refugee if he has “acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality.”
But UNRWA’s plan is to continue growing — rather than shrinking — the Palestinian refugee population ad infinitum. According to UNHCR projections, by 2030 UNRWA’s refugee list will reach 8.5 million. By 2060 there will be 25 times the number registered by UNRWA in 1950 — even though not one of those who actually left Israel is likely to still be breathing.
Everyone understands what it would mean if all these refugees were actually to be granted a “right to return” to Israel. “On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said on March 24, 2009. “That would mean the end of Israel.”
But, of course, that’s the goal: The descendants of those displaced more than 60 years ago — when the first offer of what we’ve come to call a “two-state solution” was rejected — are being used as pawns to prevent a two-state solution now or in the future. By increasing the number of refugees, by maintaining that population in poverty, dependence and anger, by understanding that the “right of return” will be demanded by some Palestinian leaders, UNRWA is helping the extremists prevent peace and continue to wage a war of annihilation against Israel. This anti-peace policy is being funded largely by Americans: The U.S. has always been the largest donor to UNRWA, contributing about $4.4 billion since 1950.
A few members of the U.S. Congress have figured out what’s going on and plan to do something about it. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is working on an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that, for the first time, would establish as U.S. policy that only a Palestinian refugee can be classified as a Palestinian refugee — not a son, grandson or great-grandson, and not someone who has resettled and taken citizenship in another country. The Kirk amendment would require the secretary of state to report to Congress on how many Palestinians serviced by UNRWA fit the traditional definition of a refugee.
Rep. Howard Berman, (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House of Representative Committee on Foreign Affairs, also is considering legislative options in response to these problems. At the very least, these approaches would assure that descendants of refugees would be listed — with unaccustomed clarity — as “descendants of refugees.”
They might still be eligible to receive UNRWA “services” but as “Palestinian Authority citizens” who could look forward to becoming citizens of a Palestinian state — if and when the Palestinians come to the conclusion that establishing a Palestinian state is worth the cost: giving up the dream of destroying the Jewish state. Too few Palestinians are there yet. If Congress can rein in UNRWA, more may be moved in that direction.
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
@ yamit82:
Quite so.
But the US Constitution is not scripture.
Your problem is that you assume you can understand the scripture by studying it like one does the Constitution
— or like an Anthropology or Math or Botany text.
I repeat my earlier — unanswered — question: Why would I need to?
In any event, the effort would be pointless, Yamit — because you aren’t open to the possibility in the first place; it’s inconceivable to you.
Therefore, no matter how much I might rub your nose in it, you STILL wouldn’t see it.
The simple fact is that YOU don’t have the mindset with which the scripture was written. (“An angry man is not fit to pray.” Nachman miBratslav)
But then, only you, yahnkele, would find value in trying to prove or disprove somebody’s faith.
Do you honestly believe that the writers (ANY of the writers) of the scripture would’ve indulged a request like yours?
Don’t bother answering that; knowing you, it’s quite likely that you WOULD believe such an absurdity. Vey iz mir!
I was laughing for 5 minutes; but most people here do not remember that was Reagan’s favorite phrase to dismiss stupidity.
@ dweller:
If you believe Judaism is easy to refute show how, with 1 or 2 primary examples.
Re; “mind-frame when texts where written”?: What Texts? Mindframe as the ultimate deciding factor would render the American constitution null and void because the mindframe or the originators superseded the written text.
Both Xty AND Judaism are easy to refute, if all you have are texts
— and don’t have the mind-frame that operated when the texts were being written.
Why would I need to?
@ dweller:
Theoretically.
Christianity is easy to refute and disprove especially where it bases itself on Jewish texts and thought but if you want to refute or disprove Judaism the burden is on you.
@ yamit82:
There you go again!
@ yamit82:
As the accuser, YOU (not I) have the burden of proof.
To ‘deny the Holocaust’ is to claim that it’s a ‘lie,’ or a ‘fantasy,’ or a ‘hoax,’ or a ‘gross overstatement.’
There is nothing in the Gil-White article to sustain that charge against Reagan — notwithstanding Gil-White’s ax-grinding attempt to draw the conclusion
— and despite YOUR hysterical attempt to exploit it by piggy-backing it.
If you’ve got some evidence, then bring it.
So far, you haven’t.
Nor has he.
More bullshit. Prove your allegation. (This should be good.)
You — of all people — need to give heed to your own counsel.
You made the accusation[s].
As the moving party, YOU, then, have the burden of proof.
Some of Prof. Gil-White’s claims constitute some of the vilest drivel I’ve seen anywhere this side of the Daily Worker, circa 1985.
@ yamit82:
I am not wrong
— and unlike White, when I provide documentation, it supports what I say.
Prof Gil-White’s own documentation often does NOT support his claims.
As I’ve shown.
I’m still waiting for YOU to prove those two contentions of his to be ‘true.’
There are posts of mine — all over this blogsite — showing quite the contrary.
He has the skills of a scholar.
But he’s not a scholar.
He’s a crank.
I’m out of time; they’re closing the library, gotta go.
@ yamit82:
They can both be WRONG.
@ yamit82:
“Correct text” for what? — not pertaining to anything relating to the post you refer to.
The point-of-departure was your claim (to Curious) that Jesus taught the people to obey the Oral ‘Law.’
None of your texts related to that. They were all off-point.
Sloppy, boychik’l.