 BADIL
2003 – 2004 Expert Forum for the
Promotion of a Rights-Based Approach to the Palestinian Refugee Question
 Summary
of Proceedings, Seminar-1
‘The Role of International Law and
Human Rights in Peacemaking
and Crafting Durable Solutions for Palestinian Refugees’
Hosted by
University of
Ghent, Belgium
22 – 23 May 2003
Contents
Session One, Day One:
‘The Role of
International Law and Human Rights, Overview and Lessons Learned from
Comparative Experience’
Session Two, Day One:
‘Past and
Current Diplomatic Approaches to Crafting Durable Solutions for
Palestinian Refugees’
Session Three, Day Two:
‘Law
and Politics, How to Put Legal Principles into Action?’
Notes
-
This
document does not include summaries of the public presentations given by
Susan Akram and As’ad Abdul Rahman in the university auditorium in the
evening of 22 May 2003.
-
This seminar was sponsored by: the Swiss
Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (PD IV), Stichting
Vluchteling/Netherlands, ICCO/Netherlands, Oxfam Solidarity/Belgium, the
Flemish Palestine Solidarity Committee and the APRODEV NGO Network.
Day One, Session One:
‘The
Role of International Law and Human Rights, Overview and Lessons Learned
from Comparative Experiences’
Presentation of Working Papers: Three
papers, summarized below, were presented for discussion. Additional input
was provided by three more background papers (‘The Right to Housing and
Property Restitution in Bosnia and Herzegovina,’ a case study by Paul
Prettitore, OSCE; a case study on ‘Land Problems in the Context of
Sustainable Repatriation in Afghanistan’ by Reem Alsalem, UNHCR; and
‘Justice Against Perpetrators, the Role of Prosecution in Peacemaking and
Reconciliation’ by Alejandra Vicente, ICTY).
The first paper, ‘UN General Assembly
Resolution 194(III) and the Framework for Durable Solutions for 1948
Palestinian Refugees, ’
presented by
Terry Rempel (BADIL), examined the meaning and intent of UN General
Assembly Resolution 194, the primary UN resolution relating to the
majority of Palestinian refugees – i.e., refugees displaced in 1948. The
paper was based on the drafting history of the resolution, working papers
prepared by the Secretariat of the UN Conciliation Commission for
Palestine (UNCCP), and the reports and correspondence of the UN Mediator
in Palestine. The presentation
summarized
the guiding principles (voluntariness, refugee choice); the specific
rights-based solutions for Palestinian refugees (a primary durable
solution, i.e. return, housing and property restitution and compensation
for damages suffered; a secondary solution, i.e. the choice not to return,
restitution and compensation); and the mechanism initially set up for the
implementation of durable solutions (the UN Conciliation Commission for
Palestine, UNCCP). The paper also
addressed the specific meaning of the three core rights of Palestinian
refugees – return, restitution, compensation.
A ‘Comparative Comment on the Role of
International Law and Human Rights in Peacemaking and Crafting Durable
Solutions for Refugees’ was presented by Lynn Welchman (SOAS). Drawing on
Christine Bell’s Peace Agreements and Human Rights (2000), it was
noted that resolution of the ‘meta-conflict’, or the ‘conflict about what
the conflict is about’ is crucial for the durability of and the respect of
individual human rights in peace agreements. As demonstrated by the cases
considered by Bell (South Africa, Northern Ireland, Bosnia Herzegovina,
and Israel/Palestine), it is particularly the ‘meta-bargaining ‘ over ‘the
deal’ on collective rights (to self-determination) that implicates the
handling of individual rights arising from past human rights violations,
which in the case of Israel-Palestine includes the right of return. The
paper reviews the tension between peace and justice in peace agreements,
and considers examples of both retributive justice (e.g. criminal
prosecution) and restorative justice (e.g. amnesty, truth commissions). It
concludes by suggesting that current Palestinian civil society efforts at
developing the ‘Palestinian legal narrative’ with a specific focus on
Palestinian refugees and the quest for inclusion and participation of
Palestinian refugees are initiatives that may contribute to ending the
almost complete divorce between the concept of peace and the concept of
justice in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
A plan for ‘Temporary Protection as an
Instrument for Implementing the Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees’
was presented by Susan Akram (Boston University of Law). Temporary
protection is widely regarded as an international legal norm that is now
obligatory on states in certain circumstances with regard to their
treatment of a mass influx of refugees, or persons fleeing situations of
armed conflict or civil strife. As a recognized status, it is the most
recent of the three major possibilities for protection of refugees which a
state can offer—the other two being the now-universal obligation of
non-refoulement (“non-return”), and the non-obligatory protection of
political asylum. The author argues that due to the unique situation (i.e.
partial exclusion) of Palestinian refugees under the international
protection regime, temporary protection linked with phased return and a
system of incentives and disincentives to ensure participation of all
stake holding states would permit immediate implementation of rights-based
durable solutions based on refugee choice and the right of return.
Discussion
1. Issues Raised in Response to the Working
Papers, Responses by the Speakers
On UN Resolution 194:
-
How is
UNGAR 194 related to current refugee law and how would this resolution be
different, if it was formulated today ?
(Mick Dumper)
Response:
UNGAR 194 is in line with current refugee law. If it was formulated today,
legal rights would most likely be further strengthened. For example, the
right of return has been referred to as an imprescriptable or
unconditional right in recent cases, such as Bosnia and Georgia. Also the
right to housing and property restitution has been strengthened (Terry
Rempel).
-
What
does the phrase ‘live in peace with their neighbors’ mean?
Is there anything in the drafting history or experience of returns since
then? (Glen Rangwala):
Response: In fact, the drafting history
is unsatisfactory on this issue. On the one hand, the Commission (UNCCP)
stated that the phrase imposed limiting conditions on the returning
refugees (through waivers or guarantees, for example, that no arms be
brought in, etc.). On the other hand, the Commission felt that UNGAR 194
also imposed conditions on Israel to maintain the safety of returnees
(Terry Rempel).
-
The
reference to international law with regard to refugees’ right to
compensation seems inconsistent with the assumption that the principles
were already part of customary law in 1948
(Joe Schechla):
Response: The inclusion of
international law referred to the specific situation of property rights of
returnees. The reference was included to strengthen the right of refugees
returning to Israel because it was unclear what their status would be
under Israel’s domestic law (Terry Rempel).
-
How
useful is it to approach UNGAR 194 as a legal doctrine?
Wouldn’t it be more useful to develop a broader set of principles, in
order to tackle the current political and ideological reality? (Leila
Hilal):
Response: The purpose of looking at
UNGAR 194 serves partly to encourage broader discussion of the resolution
and its terms of reference. It should also be noted that in addition to
the legal debate, there was also – at the time of its drafting - an
ethical or moral discourse and the opinion that an international law-based
resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue is a key element of
reconciliation in the region. In terms of broader principles today, the
demand for implementation of UNGAR 194 in the case of Israel/Palestine can
be also be seen as similar to the demand for ‘one person one vote’ in the
South African case (Terry Rempel).
On the Comparative Comments about
International Law in Peacemaking:
-
Issues
of restorative and retributive justice need further clarification
(Monique Malha)
Response: This includes a more in-depth
study of the question whose interests were really served by the South
African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), what lessons can be
learned by Palestinians, and who would be taking part in a TRC in
Palestine, if it were to take place (Jeff Handmaker).
-
Discussion about peace processes driven by third-party intervention versus
those driven by local social forces:
change in South Africa was very much a locally-initiated, rather than an
externally imposed process, and it is argued that this is positively
related to the situation of human rights there. Furthermore, a
locally-driven peace process gave more space for civil society NGOs to
operate (Jeff Handmaker). For locally-driven change, it is important that
the appropriate legal narrative is built. There is maybe now a good
opportunity for building the Palestinian legal narrative, because of the
greater international awareness of and interest in international law seen
particularly on the part of those opposing the U.S. led war against and
occupation of Iraq. (Lynn Welchman)
-
What
are the criteria for the selection of comparative cases?
(Mick Dumper):
Response:
If we use a legal approach, we compare legal principles across cases. This
is very much straight forward. If we are dealing with established legal
rights, we compare the treatment of these rights in different cases. This
may be different from the comparative
approach used by political science, where implementation of solutions is
the basis for comparison and not the principle. (Lynn Welchman)
On the Proposal for Temporary Protection for
Palestinian Refugees:
-
There
are numerous concerns about TP regimes, because TP is widely seen as
undermining the international protection regime.
If the proposed TP plan is based on criticism of the UNHCR’s
interpretation of the status of Palestinian refugees under the 1951
Refugee Convention, such criticism should take into the consideration the
new 2002 UNHCR position, which no longer interprets Article 1D as an
exclusion clause for Palestinian refugees. Additional clarification is
required. (Monique Malha):
Response:
Temporary protection is different in the Palestinian case, because the
level of protection currently provided to Palestinian refugees is lower
than that provided by TP. There is nothing to be undermined. In fact, many
states, including the United States and Canada, have not incorporated
Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention into their domestic immigration
law. And even in states that have incorporated the Article,
interpretations of its meaning – i.e. the meaning of ‘Palestinian refugees
are ipso facto entitled to the benefits of the Convention’ - vary widely.
(Susan Akram)
-
How can we
link refugee protection with broader protection for the Palestinian
people, not only refugees, under humanitarian law? Regarding
protection it is also important to refer to UN Security Council Resolution
681 (1990; on enforcement and monitoring of the Fourth Geneva Convention
in the 1967 OPT)
(Issam Younis).
It is important also to look at UNRWA’s role in this context
(Christian Berger).
Response:
TP is interesting also in this context, because it can be applied to
groups and is not necessarily based on refugee definitions (Susan Akram).
-
Concern was
raised about the use of terms, such as temporary or partial, because they
may undermine efforts for a permanent solution. Moreover, there is a
need to study more the political reality rather than all the precedents
(Leila Hilal).
2. Topics raised in the broader discussion:
·
The Relation
between law and politics;
·
The current gap
in international protection for refugees, most of whom live in areas of
UNRWA operation and are thus not covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention
even under the revised 2002 UNHCR interpretation;
·
UNRWA
initiatives that aimed to provide some protection by means of field
monitoring. In the first intifada, UNRWA could provide some protection to
the people in the 1967 OPT by sending more monitoring staff to the field,
while in the second intifada this has no longer been possible, and UNRWA
has focused on protecting its own operations.
Day One, Session Two:
‘Past and Current Diplomatic
Approaches to Crafting Durable Solutions for Palestinian Refugees’
Commentary and analysis presented by the
speakers
Mike Molloy (Special Coordinator for the
Middle East Peace Process, Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, Canada) reviewed achievements and failures of the multilateral
Refugee Working Group (RWG) over the past decade (1992 – 2003). Key agenda
were: improvement of living conditions and family reunification (1992 –
1993); fundraising for UNRWA’s peace implementation program/PIP (1994);
and drafting a joint vision paper on Palestinian refugees 10 years in the
future (1994). The RWG met for the last time on the plenary level in 1995
and was frozen by decision of the Arab governments
following the election of the Likud government in Israel. From 1996
– 2003 the RWG continued to work on a sub-plenary level. It conducted
field visits to the region, raised funds for development projects (some US
$100 million), educated western diplomats on the refugee issue, achieved a
solution for Canada Camp (some 5,000 Palestinian refugees were
successfully relocated to the Gaza Strip from the Egyptian side of the
border, where they had been stranded following the Israeli-Egyptian peace
agreement), and established a university scholarship fund currently
supporting 90 Palestinian women at universities in Lebanon. Complementary
Canadian initiatives (via the IDRC) included a first stocktaking
conference on research on the Palestinian refugee question (1998), a
workshop on compensation (1999) and support of research into the
parameters of a solution. Major commentary and conclusions:
-
The Multilateral
process was designed to break away from debate driven by UN processes and
to bring the resources, capabilities and political will of the
international community on the regional problems. This is why new fora and
terminology were created, such as the RWG headed by a ‘gavel holders’ and
‘shepherds,’ etc.
-
RWG was never
intended to supplant of bilateral, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. As a
forum established to support the bilateral negotiations it could tackle
only issues approved by all parties, and some agenda/projects had to be
dropped due to objection of one or the other of the parties (e.g.
assistance with the search for a comprehensive solution and the 10-year
vision document on Palestinian refugees were nixed by Israel; the
inclusion of refugee shelter rehabilitation in the RWG agenda was nixed by
the PLO).
-
With the start
of the second Intifada, even informal multilateral activity was frozen by
the Amman Arab Summit (October 2000). Following extensive consultations,
the Canadians shifted the focus from development support to support of the
negotiators, who were defined as the primary clients. Projects are
selected for support if they can make a contribution to signing,
implementing or marketing ‘the deal.’
-
Political will
by the parties and the availability of resources are the key to agreements
and solutions. International law and principles are secondary factors. If
there is political will, the appropriate legal framework can be found.
Christian Berger (European Commission,
Political Advisor – Near East) noted that the official European position
holds that a solution of the Palestinian refugee question must be ‘fair,
just, agreed upon and realistic.’ The EC is aware of the centrality of the
refugee issue for a durable solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It was his view that irrespective of the type of agreement that will be
reached, Palestinian refugees must be involved in the process. He also
drew attention to the fact that the international community ‘cannot be
more Palestinian than the Palestinians’ also with regard to proposed
solutions of the refugee question. While it is true that political will is
the key to solutions, we must keep in mind that it is usually the
political will of the most dominant party that shapes agreements and the
role given to principles and international law. Looking at the past, we
can see that solutions were formed by political preferences, and not by
universal principles. There were, for example, Greek-Turkish population
transfers in the 1920’s and the lack of
support for refugee return after the beginning of the cold war. In
contrast, there has been strong support for refugee return in the Balkans
in the past decade.
He referred to the EU's role in trying to improve the
socio-economic situation of refugees, particularly through its support to
UNRWA (EU being the biggest donor) and support to the PA.
Dr. As’ad Abdul Rahman (former Head of the PLO
Refugee Department) presented a paper (‘Revisiting Israeli-Palestinian
Peace Negotiations on the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1991 – 2000’) that
summarized the important steps in Middle East peacemaking efforts since
1991: the Madrid Peace Conference, Oslo Accords, the Refugee Working Group
and the Quadripartite Committee, the Beilin-Abu Mazen Agreement, the Camp
David II Summit and the Taba Negotiations. He clarified that according to
his information, there never was an agreement on final status issues
between Abu Mazen and Yossi Beilin. He also raised that the Palestinian
position on the refugee issue has always included a realistic practical
element. He held that the Palestinian leadership might have been willing
to compromise on the refugee issue, if Israel had agreed to a full
withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories, plus providing at least
relative justice for the Palestinian refugees.
Two additional participants were asked to
summarize the arguments of their papers. Glen Rangwala of Cambridge
University (‘Negotiating the Non-negotiable: the Right of Return and the
Evolving Role of Legal Standards’) raised the problematics of negotiations
over the right of return, which – as a basic human right - is outside the
realm of the negotiable. He outlined four not mutually exclusive options
for future negotiations: international human rights, including the right
of return, could be taken as a starting point by the parties themselves or
enforced by a third party – two options which he considered unlikely; a
separation between the territorial solution and the solution of the wider
conflict, especially the refugee question – an option which has so far not
won the support of any of the parties; and, a renewed joint effort by the
Palestinian negotiators and the refugees themselves aimed at asserting
that no one has the capacity to override the individual right of return,
thus preserving the international standing of this right.
Karma Nabulsi of Nuffield College, Oxford
(‘Popular Sovereignty, Collective Rights, Participation and Crafting
Durable Solutions for Palestinian Refugees’) emphasized that when talking
about ‘the deal’ in peace agreements, it is important to specify what kind
of deal is implied. The Oslo framework was based on the assumption that
postponement of the refugee issue would help build confidence and lower
refugee expectations, while in fact the opposite has happened. The narrow
focus on the Palestinian Authority has, moreover, led to a total
disconnection between the Palestinian people, its body politic, the
negotiators and the international community. The findings of a 2000 Joint
British Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, for example, show that
Palestinians everywhere agree that the PLO is their representative, but
they want more effective representation. She also argued that popular
sovereignty, democracy and representation are the components which can
resolve the apparent dichotomy between law and politics. Palestinian
refugees, if granted a mechanism for participation and representation can
take the role of political actors and make law and rights principles
matter in future peace efforts.
Discussion
1.
Issues Raised
in Response to the Presentations
- An inquiry about the status of ‘Canada
Park’ established on the ruins of the Palestinian villages of Emwas, Yalou
and Beit Nuba (Mahmoud Issa)
Response: Mike Molloy clarified that
there is no official Canadian involvement of this park, which was named
and sponsored by a private Canadian Jewish group.
- How can Palestinians in Europe be part of
the process of integration? (Mahmoud Issa)
Response: Palestinians in Europe, at
least those who hold citizenship, live in the best of both worlds. They
can participate in Europe by virtue of their citizenship and in
Palestinian affairs through the PLO. (Christian Berger)
- What is the EU doing to ensure that a
solution on the Palestinian refugee issue will be a just solution?
(Martin Siepermann)?
Response: If a future agreement clearly
violates international law, it can be assumed that Europe will not accept
it. However, no minimum standards for a just agreement have yet been
defined. (Christian Berger)
- It is important to distinguish between
the exercise of temporary protection and consequent repatriation f
Bosnians from the Palestinian situation. One of the principal
incentives behind European support for repatriation of Bosnians came from
the fact that large numbers of Bosnian refugees were residing in Europe,
and European governments wanted these refugees to return. By contrast, in
this respect one can expect that there is comparatively limited political
incentive from Europe to support the right of return in the Palestinian
case, since only a small number of all Palestinian refugees reside in
European countries, the majority residing the Middle East. However, there
may of course be other political incentives (Jeff Handmaker).
- The example of the improvement of living
conditions in the camps is an example of a process where the RWG engaged
the Arab states in order to overcome political obstacles and solved the
problem based on principle (Terry Rempel). Why is it then that
there is no political will to engage Israel on key issues that matter to
refugees? (Ingrid Jaradat)
Response: There is a need to engage
Israel as well as the United States (Mike Molloy). The international
community and international NGOs should do more to involve Israel in the
debate on the refugee issue. Israel should recognize the rights of the
refugees as confirmed by UN Resolution 194, including their right of
return and compensation. This is the principle basis for the solution. I
think on the negotiation table things will move. The Taba negotiations are
proof that there is room for some optimism that the parties can meet on
the refugee issues, if there is political will for implementation (Saji
Khalil).
2. General Conclusions, Day One
·
There was
general agreement on the core rights of Palestinian refugees (return,
restitution, compensation), on the fact that rights themselves are outside
the realm of negotiations, that solutions should be crafted based on
individual refugee choice, and on the fact that international law played
an insufficient role in the Oslo process.
·
A variety of
views was expressed about the relationship between law and politics.
However, there was general agreement that international law matters and
should matter. Participants generally expressed the view that the degree
to which international law is incorporated into the peacemaking process,
particularly in the Palestinian-Israeli case, is dependent on the
political will of relevant actors.
·
Participants agreed that there was a lack of political will by the
dominant parties of the international community and
Israel to craft durable solutions for Palestinian refugees
in conformity with international law and UNGA Resolution 194(III).
Day Two, Session Three
‘Law
and Politics: How to Put Legal Principles into Action?’
Summary of the Debate and Conclusions
Note:
Following is a compilation of recommendations made by the participants
of the NGO community and academia during the discussion. The complete set
of recommendations was not necessarily endorsed by all participants, and
the recommendations do not necessarily reflect the views of the officials
who attended the meeting nor the views of the governments of institutions
they represent.
1.
There
is need for a broader message or framework in which to situate the right
of return of Palestinian refugees:
-
The
argument for the right of return must be made as part of a strong and
broader message built on basic principles, such as the principle of
non-discrimination. This message must include analysis of the nature of
the state of Israel, its discriminatory laws
and the para-statal organizations used for the dispossession and
displacement of the Palestinian people. Moral arguments must be made, and
they must include legal authority and details (facts, figures, etc.).
2.
A
rights-based and durable solution for Palestinian refugee rights must be
promoted by means of an interdisciplinary approach rooted in the common
message:
-
Different types
of work must be done in different arenas, political, negotiators,
academic, UN agencies, NGO, popular, etc. While each party must operate
according to is specific mandate and style, activities should be
complementary and done at the same time.
-
This Seminar set
out to help develop a kit of tools, i.e. strategies and activities, for
the promotion of a rights-based approach to the Palestinian refugee issue.
The outcome should be that people can act together but also work
autonomously.
3. Palestinian Refugees and Broader
Palestinian Civil Society must be engaged in debate and clarification of
agenda:
-
There is not
enough Palestinian debate about the rights of and solutions for
Palestinian refugees. The broader Palestinian civil society must be
engaged, not only refugees themselves. In some areas, for example in the
Gaza Strip, there is not a single organization tackling the issue of
refugee rights. Ways for developing cooperation between BADIL and
Palestinian NGOs in the Gaza Strip should be explored.
-
Civil society
structures of the Palestinian communities in exile must be re-built and
strengthened, in order to facilitate participation and democratic decision
making.
4.
Intensify
Efforts at Alliance-building:
-
Recognition and
implementation of the right of return of Palestinian refugees cannot be
achieved by force of arms. It is vital therefore to find ways to engage
the Israeli side. Unless this succeeds, there is little chance for support
of a rights-based approach by the dominant political actors (especially
since the United States hold that the legal approach is ‘not helpful’ or
‘practical’);
-
Develop contacts
with media and journalists;
-
Identify
political leaders from other anti-colonial struggles (e.g.
South Africa, Burundi);
-
Link with
NGOs and anti-colonial movements and build solidarity around specific
parallels, e.g. institutionalized discrimination in
South Africa.
5.
Develop
Research and New Tools for the Advancement of Rights-Based Solutions for
Palestinian Refugees:
-
Advance efforts
at developing a common Palestinian and Israeli approach to the Palestinian
Nakba of 1948 (e.g. through public debate, visits to destroyed Palestinian
villages, meetings between Israelis and Palestinian refugees, panel of
historians along the lines of recent work of Karma Nabulsi/Ilan Pappe,
Zochrot, a.o.) as a step in advance of more formal means for dealing with
the past. Attach a broader framework to existing activities of this kind,
in order to raise their profile and draw attention to their political
implications.
-
Study the
current debate about restorative and retributive justice, judicial and
non-judicial forms of dealing with the aftermath of conflict. Examine the
feasibility of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Palestinian
case taking into consideration the criticism raised in South
Africa. Other, more technical options (e.g. return commission in
Afghanistan) should be explored too.
-
NGOs in
Europe (Denmark, Italy, a.o.) are contemplating to set up a symbolic,
popular tribunal for Israeli war crimes. Testimonies of 1948 refugees
would have to be collected, and help from Palestinian NGOs and experts
would be needed.
-
Systematic
research should be done on certain groups of rights, needs and wishes of
Palestinian refugees, following the model of existing research efforts on
protection rights (Susan Akram, BADIL, a.o.) and popular rights (see, for
example, Karma Nabulsi). Working groups could be formed for this purpose.
-
There is a
need for seminars to examine the notion of the Jewish state. Debate over
the Jewish character of Israel is essential,
in order to tackle the right to return and property restitution and
dismantle Israel’s discriminatory laws.
-
More comparative
studies of return programs, using the vast experience of UNHCR; this may
provide new and concrete ideas for the Palestinian case.
-
The Temporary
Protection Plan presented to this Seminar by Susan Akram should be
critically reviewed and discussed. Incentives and disincentives to ensure
participation of key states must be further developed. Such a plan could
be an asset for Palestinian negotiators in the future.
6.
Education and
Lobbying based on international law principles and an inclusive message
must be undertaken in all arenas:
-
European NGOs emphasize the
need for public education; there is a need to popularize the refugee
issue, in order to close the gap between the knowledge among politicians
and negotiators and the street.
-
The media in
Europe and elsewhere must be sensitized
and educated about the refugee issue and the merits of an
international-law based argument;
-
European NGOs can support a
rights-based approach by recruiting support among the donor community
(NGOs and governments). BADIL partners, such as ICCO, Oxfam Solidarity,
and the Aprodev Network, have a central role to play in this context.
-
UN Fora: Develop a body of lex
foranda (soft law) that will eventually be recognized in hard law, for
example, by using the UN treaty bodies which issue conclusions that can
then be used for public education, in the court system and in the media.
7.
Need for
a Principled Approach for the Engagement of Israeli Society
-
There is an
international desire to see Israelis and Palestinians engaged, no matter
what they are saying to each other. Engagement on a political level hasn’t
been meaningful in the recent stage; there was just pushing for a deal,
rather than trying to reach real reconciliation.
-
Members of the
Israeli political establishment are representatives of institutionalized
discrimination. Therefore, Israeli civil society must be the primary
target for a rights-based engagement in the Palestinian refugee issue.
-
Israeli civil
society must be engaged in a principled debate on a human level about core
issues, such as institutionalized discrimination, the Palestinian Nakba of
1948 and refugees’ right of return (via workshops, media campaigns, etc.).
This will not lead to a quick deal, but it is the only way forward.
-
Clarity on the
right of return is important, in order to assure Israeli society that
something is not lurking. The work of Salman Abu Sitta, for example, is
useful in terms of showing the practical aspects, including planning for
return. In terms of dialogue, there is a lot of comparative experience we
can learn from, and one of the lessons learned is that without repentance,
there is no going forward.
-
Meetings and
debate with Israeli civil society should in principle be held in
Palestine/Israel, in order to avoid the atmosphere of ‘quasi-negotiations’
often triggered by meetings abroad. However, European civil society
organizations can facilitate this Palestinian-Israeli dialogue by
affirming a rights-based approach to the refugee issue with their Israeli
partners.
8.
Need
for Popular Mobilization inside
Palestine, Europe, the United States and elsewhere
-
The
Palestinian campaign for the right of return must be strengthened. This
campaign was launched as a result of Palestinian community conferences
held after the Oslo Accords in Palestine,
Europe and the United States. It has been able to show a way forward to
many Palestinian community activists in exile and in Palestine, and it has
succeeded to set up a global coalition and recruit international NGO
partners who were initially very hesitant.
-
The
promotion of rights-based solutions for Palestinian refugees depends very
much on the amount of pressure that can be exerted by civil society,
including Israel boycott initiatives,
divestment initiatives, etc.
9.
The Role
of BADIL and this Expert Forum
-
This Expert
Forum is designed as a process of four seminars and a closing conference.
It is not intended to become a permanent forum for the implementation of
BADIL’s program, but rather an effort to bring together experts, policy
makers and activists who share the concern for the importance of a
rights-based solution for Palestinian refugees and can contribute to this
aim in various ways. It is an initiative aimed at encouraging and
facilitating identification of needed research, networking and
coordination among the numerous players.
-
For BADIL,
conclusions and recommendations of this and subsequent seminars provide
urgently needed feedback and input for the development of its program and
partner networks. BADIL considers itself as one of the many actors able to
contribute, through its projects, to the strengthening of a rights-based
approach to the Palestinian refugee issue. While many of the
recommendations issued here are directly relevant for our activities
(research, networking and lobbying as part of the Palestine Right of
Return Coalition, lobbying for effective protection for Palestinian
refugees, engaging Israeli civil society on the right of return, a.o.),
BADIL does not have the capacity nor aim to take responsibility for
follow-up and coordination of all the valuable recommendations issued by
these seminars.
|
