The political character of the conference was also highlighted by the fact that no papers were presented from the researchers, despite the fact that those who prepared papers were able to put them on a table at the entrance of the conference center. Finally, the issue of the Right of Return was never mentioned by the IDRC speakers or the Canadian officials, but rather emphasized by many Arab participants. Several positions which reflected the national and political identities of the conferences attendants are highlighted below.
The four Israeli attendants never introduced themselves as representatives to the Israeli government, or as committed to the Israeli-Zionist position towards the Palestinian refugees. But it was very clear that the four of them represented the formal Israeli position towards the Palestinian refugees question. This fact revealed the depth of Zionist education on Israeli-Jewish positions resulting in a complete assimilation. The four Israelis made their position clear early in the conference: the solution of the Palestinian refugee question should occur outside of 1948 Palestine. This has been the traditional Israeli position since1948.
The Israeli participants emphasized the fact that the right of return is rejected by Israel. They argued that the refugee issue was a small item in the negotiation agenda, and it should be dropped to the final stage of negotiations. They suggested that Palestinians should forget about the right of return. One Israeli participant warned that return to the West Bank would create many problems for the Palestinian Authority - i.e. lack of stability. Several Arab participants, including Palestinians, criticized the Isreali position. One participant noted that some Israeli participants were "using in the conference the same military discourse of the Israeli generals. All the Israeli power never changed the Palestinians belief in their right of return, and will not wipe out the memory of the Palestinian people".
Other Israeli participants, however, concentrated more on the so-called, "developmental" approach. Accordingly, they called for the establishment of a development fund for the whole region (especially Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and Jordan). The aim of this project would be to resettle the Palestinian in the places in which they are currently living. They emphasized that the solution of the Palestinian refugee question should take place in the context of government negotiations. "There is no way to discuss an individual’s wishes. What should pass will be what governments agreed upon". Arab conference attendees replied that this approach was very undemocratic, repressive and a racist position. It was pointed out that the Israeli government insists that its withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights of Syria should be determined by a referendum for the Israeli people. Why shouldn't the Palestinian people, it was asked, be consulted regarding their fate?
One Palestinian delegate replied from a practical point view. He presented maps and statistics about several areas inside 1948 which are able to absorb large numbers of Palestinian returnees, i.e. Negev and Galilee, without harming Israel’s population density. He referred to the million Jewish immigrants and settlers to Israel in the last few years who were absorbed easily in Palestine.
Arab participants also referred to the dangerous tactic of UNRWA in the last four years since it slashed its budget by 29%, in addition to UNRWA’s bureaucracy and corruption. A Palestinian participant noted that, as long as the conference’s aim is to evaluate studies on the refugees, the positions of the Israeli social sectors, classes, and ethnic minorities (the Russian Jews, the Eastern Jews…) should be studied. Most of the attendents never thought of asking the Palestinian refugees themselves what they wanted. The new role of UNRWA, (the development approach) should be evaluated and its validity should be examined, especially considering the fact that UNRWA is suffering from a deficit of its services budget, while services is its main mandate. One participant emphasized that the role of UNRWA never was a mere moral commitment from the United Nations. It is the right of the Palestinian people until the UN will be able to oblige Israel to fulfill the UN resolutions for the Palestinians right of return. Even in case of compensation, "there must be a scientific and technical studies for the compensation issue. If the amounts of money will by large, the world community will still able to meet it."
While many attendants were not in support of the change of UNRWA’s role, i.e to "development", or even the end of its work, one international participant argued openly for the termination of UNRWA. He noted "that the Palestinian society in the West Bank is divided between refugee and non-refugee. As an example, he said that a study conducted by FAFO showed that the marriage between refugees and non-refugees is marginal. It was pointed out, however, that this view represented a particular anthropological way of thinking. The fact that many of the refugees integrated into the West Bank cities wiped out any separation between the two communities inspite of economic and even class issues. And more than that it was noted that one should also consider the political/national factor which unify the Palestinians all over the world. Marriage takes place in Palestinian society according to where one lives and works. This explains why internal marriages in a certain place are more common than external marriages.
Papers of invitation to the conference did not contain any remarks that the Canadian government was behind the conference, or that the IDRC was connected to the government in one way or another. The large attendance of Canadian officials, especially from the department of Foreign Affairs, made it clear that the idea behind the conference was more political, not academic. For this reason, an "Arab lobby" was indirectly created on the spot to keep the conference in the academic level, and to refuse any political statement to be issued at the end of the conference. For this reason, the Canadian contingent was more enthusiastic towards the discussion on water, compensation, UNRWA…etc. Two Americans attendents shared the Canadian position, in part making a defence on behalf of UNRWA noting that engaging in "development" is part of its mandate. But they failed to justify the contradiction which crystallized in the fact that there is a deficit in the UNRWA services budget and a surplus in its "developmental" one, in addition to the fact that UNRWA started "development" after Oslo.
It appeared that the Canadian aim was to move the negotiation process an inch forward especially after the obstacles which were created by the current Israeli government. Canadian officials wanted to explore the Palestinian position. To measure it and/or to normalize it and to push it to be closer to the Israeli one - i.e. to find out to what extent the Palestinians are ready to classify the Palestinian refugee issue as an item in the regional compromise, and not to continue as an independent subject based on the right of return.
