Open Letter
by Palestinian Community Organizations and
Refugee Rights Initiatives
Re: Our Feedback on RIIA/CLS
Consultation Workshops 2002-3 on the Palestinian Refugee Issue
(E/20/03)
BADIL Resource Center
29 April 2003
For Immediate Release
To:
Dr. Rosemary Hollis, Head
Middle East Programme
Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA)
[by email]
Mr. Nadim Shehadi, Director
Center for Lebanese Studies (CLS)
[by email]
Dear Dr. Hollis, dear Mr. Shehadi,
First of all, we would like to thank you for
invitations extended to many of us listed below to participate in your consultation
workshops. All of us, Palestinian community organizations and refugee rights initiatives
have followed these events – from Minster Lovell to Cyprus – with great
interest, and several of us have accepted your invitations to attend. We did so, because
we are deeply concerned about the future of Palestinian refugees and convinced of the need
for a just and durable solution to our plight. We were hoping that your workshops would
provide a platform for constructive discussion with regional and international actors
about ways to overcome the numerous obstacles on the road to a just and durable peace,
including for Palestinian refugees.
Unfortunately, we feel that our expectations
were wrong. Following your three-day workshop held in Cyprus (14 – 16 March), we
consulted each other and re-evaluated our experience and reached the conclusion that we
will not participate in future RIIA/CLS workshops that follow
the current format and agenda.
The major reasons for our decision can be
summarized as follows:
- While RIIA/CLS workshops are presented as a consultative
process, the agenda has largely failed to sufficiently
address the issue of most concern to Palestinian refugees – i.e., a solution to more
than 50 years of exile that is consistent with UN Resolution 194 and international law.
There has been little concern and respect for our basic individual and collective rights,
including the right to return to our cities and villages and repossess our homes,
properties and lands. These rights, which are afforded to all other refugees, have, for
example, been referred to as ‘destructive’ and an obstacle to a final agreement.
Our basic right to fully understand the terms and details of any future agreement as it
affects us has also been called into question.
- The purpose of RIIA/CLS workshops is not clearly stated to
the participants. Workshop agenda have appeared vague, with topics often revisited in
subsequent workshops without significant additional information. Participants raise
concern about the lack of identifiable, i.e. documented, outcome and follow up. At the
same time, workshop agenda appear to be guided by a so-called realist approach based on
the balance of power in the region. According to this approach Israel will never agree to
the right of return therefore refugees will have to accept other solutions. The so-called
solution derived from this balance of power appears to follow the basic outlines of the
Clinton/Barak ideas raised in 2000/2001 – i.e., limited return on humanitarian
grounds (family reunification), quotas, land swaps, and a major international initiative
for resettlement and compensation.
- This approach fails to seriously consider that Israel’s
citizenship and nationality laws that prevent our return, and land laws that have been
used to confiscate our homes, properties and lands are not consistent with international
law. Reform or repeal of such laws is key to solutions in other refugee cases. In other
words the prospect for a solution to the refugee issue, according to this approach, is
largely dependent on us giving up our basic rights. In return, Israel is able to keep its
discriminatory and racist laws. Such an approach is not practical or realistic . We do not believe that such a solution will lead to a just,
comprehensive and durable peace in the region, neither for us nor for Israelis.
- Discussions about a solution to the refugee issue should be
based on acceptance of our individual right and choice to return to our homes, lands,
businesses and farms. We should not have to argue about whether or not there is a right of
return. Other refugees are not forced to do so and neither should we. Our basic rights
cannot be extinguished or negotiated away. We do not accept the premise that collectively
Arab host states can make ‘necessary compromises’ to reach a final agreement on
the refugee issue. Rather than providing a platform for constructive discussion with
regional and international actors about ways to overcome the numerous obstacles on the
road to a just and durable peace, we feel that the process has been designed to co-opt
refugees into a discussion about a solution that does not serve our interests, but rather
the interests of powerful state actors.
Thus, while some of us have participated in
the consultations, we feel that our views are not taken seriously, and often regarded as
an obstacle to rather than the foundation for a solution. Our willingness to participate
in the consultation workshops has not been matched by a willingness on your part to take
our views seriously and incorporate them into the agenda. In many ways we have become
‘present absentees’ – present in the discussions but absent in terms of
having any impact on the agenda, present but not represented.
Should the agenda on your end change, we would
be pleased to revisit our collective decision.
Signatories
Aidun-Lebanon
Aidun-Syria
Al-Awda UK
Al-Awda (Palestine Right to Return Coalition)
Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced (ADRID), 1948
Palestine/Israel
Association of Palestinians in France
BADIL Resource Center, Palestine
Committee for the Defense of Palestinian Refugee Rights, West Bank
Group 194
High Committee for the Defense of the Right of Return, Jordan
Palestinian NGO Forum Lebanon
Palestine Land Society; The Sponsoring Committee for the Declaration of the Right of
Return, London Palestinian Return Center (PRC), London
Palestinian Right-of-Return Coalition – Europe (Berlin, London, Holland, France,
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Greece)
Polish-Arab Cultural Society
Popular Service Committees – West Bank
Popular Service Committees – Gaza Strip
Union of Youth Activity Centers, Palestine Refugee Camps
Coordinating Committee, Local Committees for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, West Bank
Refugee Camps
Union of Women Centers, West Bank Refugee Camps
International partner organizations that
have expressed their support of our position on the Palestinian refugee issue as expressed
in this letter:
ICCO, Interchurch Organization for Development
Cooperation (Netherlands) Mieke Zagt, Programme Officer, Department for Africa and Middle
East
OXFAM Solidarity (Belgium)
NPA, Norwegian People’s Aid
Gudrun Bertinussen, Resident Representative, Palestine
Al-Am’ari Camp, Amman, Balata Camp,
Beirut, Bethlehem, Brussels, Copenhagen, Damascus, Gaza, Jabalya Camp, Kalandia Camp,
Krakow, London, Nablus, Orange/Connecticut, Oslo, Paris, Shafa’amr,
Zeist/Netherlands,
29 April 2003 |