Ibishblog received a question from a reader who begins by taking issue with my characterization that Ali Abunimah these days seems to be saying different things to different audiences. I strongly stand by that characterization. He then asks a substantial question regarding my opinion about the right of return for Palestinian refugees and how it has evolved or remained consistent over the years.
The substance of the question was:
“In your recent conversation with the LA Israeli consul general, you were willing to jettison the Palestinian’s right of return, a right you very ably defended in an ADC publication not so very long ago; a paper co-authored with the same Abunimah. So what happened? Do you, as you assert of Abunimah, write different things for different audiences, or are you no longer persuaded by your own argument regarding the right of return? If the latter, can you explain what you now find unconvincing about that argument?”
Thank you very much for this question. I very much appreciate the opportunity of being able to clarify what is an important issue and the source of a good deal of confusion, especially online. First, I wish to state plainly that in the radio program with Israel’s consul general in Los Angeles, Jacob Dayan, I most certainly did not “jettison” the Palestinian right of return; nor am I in any position to do so. The way in which the refugee issue is dealt with in terms of the national agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, that is to say between Israel and Palestine, is a matter for government negotiators and must be subject to popular approval in a referendum. Individual refugee rights, which are inviolable, can be pursued through legal and political means other than continuing the conflict and the occupation.
Moreover, in the radio program I insisted that the right of return was a principle that ought to be recognized by Israel as part of an end-of-conflict agreement. However, I also recognized that, as a sovereign state, Israel has the authority to determine who will be entering its territory, and that the logic of a two-state peace agreement is not consistent with the return of huge numbers of Palestinian refugees to live in Israel. I also said that, in my view, Israel should agree to allow some refugees the option to return, but that if it refused to do so in agreement that would end the occupation and end the conflict should not be “broken on those rocks.”
As to the paper to which the reader referred, it is a monograph entitled, “The Palestinian Right of Return” (ADC, 2001), written eight years ago, before the start of the second intifada. I’m not sure if that’s "not so long ago" or not, but that is indeed beside the point. During the negotiations that were taking place eight years ago, the right of return was a significant issue that needed to be fleshed out in its full political and legal significance. I think it’s perfectly obvious that the diplomatic and political landscape has shifted a good deal in the intervening period, but I also think that the essential principles laid out in the document remain relevant, and that they are, in my view, not inconsistent with the position I took on the radio program.
The most important point on this issue, from my perspective both at the time and now is that, as we wrote, “For Palestinians the recognition of the right of return is an essential element of a reconciliation with Israel and a just resolution to the conflict.” This is precisely what I continued to call for on the radio last month: a recognition of the right of return as a legal principle. As a bottom line, Ali and I concluded our analysis by stating flatly, “Israeli concerns and questions about the right of return are understandable and must be addressed, but Israel’s absolute rejection of the rights of refugees cannot be the final word.” Again, this is not in any way contradictory to the position I outlined in the radio program with the consul general, since I called for a recognition of the right of return by Israel and the actual return of refugees as well.
I am strongly in agreement with ATFP’s Statement of Principles on the Palestinian Refugee Issue, which I played a role in drafting. It states:
The objective of ATFP is the establishment of a Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, and an end of the Israeli occupation that began in 1967. ATFP is opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, but is not opposed to the state of Israel in its internationally recognized borders.
1) A resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue can only come about through direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials as an expression of their national policies. No other parties are entitled to negotiate on this issue. However, individuals and organizations are free to express their opinions on this issue in the spirit of free, open and respectful debate.
2) There are many parties responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian refugees. Responsible parties include first Israel for displacing the Palestinian refugees, refusing their return and confiscating their property without compensation. Some Arab states also bear varying degrees of responsibility; some for allowing generations of refugees to languish in camps under miserable conditions, or by placing various restrictions in terms of their legal status, employment and travel rights, and others for not having done enough to ease the suffering of refugees. Finally, the Palestinian leadership has been at fault for not communicating honestly and openly with the refugees on what they can expect for their future.
3) The right of return is an integral part of international humanitarian law, and cannot be renounced by any parties. There is no Palestinian constituency of consequence that would agree to the renunciation of this right. There is also no Jewish constituency of consequence in Israel that would accept the return of millions of Palestinian refugees.
4) Although the right of return cannot be renounced, it should not stand in the way of the only identifiable peaceful prospect for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: a resolution based on a state of Israel living side-by-side with a Palestinian state in the occupied territories with its capital in East Jerusalem. Implementation of the right of return cannot obviate the logic of a resolution based on two states. The challenge for the Israeli and Palestinian national leaderships is to arrive at a formula that recognizes refugee rights but which does not contradict the basis of a two-state solution and an end to the conflict.
5) As part of any comprehensive settlement ending the conflict, Israel should accept its moral responsibility to apologize to the Palestinian people for the creation of the refugee problem. Palestinians should accept that this acknowledgment of responsibility does not undermine the legitimacy of the present-day Israeli state.
I do not believe there is any fundamental inconsistency in these two documents, although the emphasis is certainly different, reflecting changed political contexts and imperatives. I suppose it might be possible for someone else to argue that the change of emphasis is so significant that it amounts to a change of position. Certainly, the ATFP statement of principles above characterizes everything I have said about the issue for the past six years, at least, which ought to be consistent enough for most people. Insofar as this kind of change in emphasis from a paper written eight years ago is perceived by some to be an inconsistency eight years later, at least there can be no doubt that it is an improvement.