Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 2003, pages 19, 67

Special Report

 

Poll Shows Right of Return a Win-Win Situation for Palestinians and Israelis Alike

 

By Delinda C. Hanley

Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date.

—U.N. Resolution 194, December 1948

Since its establishment, Israel has refused to assume responsibility in any way for the Palestinian refugee problem it engendered. Israeli leaders always have declared that allowing Palestinians and their descendants to return to their homes or property inside Israel would be suicidal and would destroy the Jewish nature of the state. Successive Israeli governments have ruled out the return of millions of Palestinians to a country with a population of only six million, fearing it would wipe out the Jewish majority which is needed to ensure Israel as the world’s only Jewish state. For 55 years, the refugee issue has been the ultimate deal breaker.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) estimates there are 6.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants. That figure includes 3,172,641 registered refugees in UNRWA’s “area of operation” (West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon). Their right to return is sacred to every Palestinian, whether he or she resides in a squalid hovel in a refugee camp or a high-rise apartment in Manhattan. Palestinian negotiators no longer can ignore, or even postpone this key requirement for a just peace.

Political analyst and pollster Dr. Khalil Shikaki, himself a Palestinian refugee, set out to ask 4,506 refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and the occupied territories where they would like to live if they had a choice. His organization, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), surveyed refugee families living both inside and outside refugee camps. Shikaki discussed his findings at a Palestine Center briefing July 17 in Washington, DC, as well as in radio interviews.

In order to represent their people at peace talks, Shikaki said, negotiators needed to hear what refugees, especially those caught in refugee camp limbo, want, or for what they would settle.

Pollsters, who were refugees as well, asked respondents their opinions of specific solutions discussed at the January 2001 Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Taba. The questionnaire was prepared in consultation with official Palestinian institutions in charge of negotiations and refugee affairs in the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, as well as with researchers and NGOs.

Forfeiting the Palestinian right of return was never an option; previous surveys showed that more than 95 percent of Palestinians insist on maintaining that right. Pollsters instead sought to find out how refugees would behave once they obtained that right.

The results of the PSR survey, conducted between January and June 2003, surprised Shikaki, Palestinian leaders, and the rest of the world. The poll data showed that Israel’s Jewish majority was not at risk by accepting the Palestinian right of return, because only 10 percent of Palestinians desired to live in a Jewish state. Of those, only 10 percent wanted to have Israeli citizenship or Israeli passports. Ninety percent of those who wanted Israel as a permanent place of residence said that they would rather have Palestinian citizenship and a Palestinian passport. Thus, only 1 percent of Palestinian refugees would opt for both residence and citizenship in the state of Israel. There are 290,000 foreign workers in Israel today, so an extra 65,000 (1 percent of 6.5 million) Palestinian residents would hardly rock the boat.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians polled wanted to live in a Palestinian state. Dr. Shikaki emphasized the fact that, no matter where Palestinians elected to settle, it would not be in exchange for the right of return, but in addition to that right. This major point was lost in the “tide of misinformation,” leaks and spins that infuriated a Palestinian mob which attacked Dr. Shikaki and ransacked his Ramallah offices on July 13.

The pollster was about to hold a press conference to release his survey results when about 100 rioters stormed into his office, and struck, shoved and pelted Shikaki with eggs. The mob actually believed the hard-liners’ spin in both the Israeli and Arab press that Palestinian negotiators might give up their sacred right of return. Headlines in Israeli and U.S. newspapers had erroneously declared that the poll had found the right of return to Israel to be not that important to most Palestinians.

Instead, Dr. Shikaki said, “This is a win-win situation for both Israelis and Palestinians.” The facts show that there is a great deal of flexibility as the Palestinian people exercise their rights and choose their place of residence. Israeli fears that a large number of refugees would be knocking at their doors once the Israelis recognize the right of return are unfounded, according to Shikaki.

Neither postponing the refugee issue, absorption in Arab host countries, nor improving living conditions for the refugees in neighboring states will solve the refugee problem, he said. Nor will offers of small-scale “family reunification,” ceilings, token repatriation, or financial compensation. Palestinians will not waive their inalienable right of return, a right guaranteed to refugees in every conflict.

“This is not in exchange for the right of return,” Shikaki repeatedly emphasized. “This is in addition to having the right of return.” The vast majority of Palestinians would prefer to live in a Palestinian state. With their homes and villages inside Israel now destroyed, living in a Jewish state is neither practical nor appealing. Nor is living in overcrowded camps in constant fear of Israeli attacks, while supporters and ill-wishers in air-conditioned offices bicker over their future. Refugees want to settle down with their families.

Now it is a matter of penetrating Israeli public opinion and convincing them that they can afford to recognize Palestinians’ right of return, Shikaki concluded. A two-state solution can work, and would not mean demographic disaster for the Jewish state.

Delinda C. Hanley is news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

SIDEBAR

 

Survey Specifics

Three kinds of data were collected: information about the refugees, and their socio-economic conditions; their views and attitudes regarding peace settlement issues; and refugees’ expected behavior under a specific peace solution (published in papers after the Taba negotiations) and under various circumstances of a refugee settlement.

Each head of family was given a choice to:

1. Return to Israel in accordance with an annual quota and become an Israeli citizen. (10 percent of respondents selected this option)

2. Stay in the newly established Palestinian state established in the West Bank and Gaza and receive fair compensation for property taken over by Israel and for other losses and suffering. (31 percent)

3. Receive Palestinian citizenship and return to designated areas inside Israel that would later be swapped with Palestinian areas as part of a territorial exchange and receive compensation. (23 percent)

4. Receive fair compensation for property, losses, and suffering and remain in the host country, receiving its or Palestinian citizenship. (17 percent)

5. Receive fair compensation for the property, losses, and suffering and immigrate to a European country or the U.S., Australia, or Canada, and obtain citizenship of that country or Palestinian citizenship. (2 percent)

Thirteen percent of respondents refused all options, and 5 percent had no opinion.

A majority of the refugees said that Israel would reject the proposed solution to the refugee problem, but a majority of 55 percent in Jordan, 63 percent in Palestine and 67 percent in Lebanon believed the PLO would accept the solution.

When asked how they would react to a Palestinian-Israeli agreement embracing the proposal, the overwhelming majority tended to approve such an agreement, even if most felt they would do so for the lack of a better alternative. A small percentage (15 percent, 9 percent, and 8 percent in the occupied territories, Lebanon, and Jordan respectively) said it would not only oppose such a solution but would also resist it.

Researchers looked carefully at the motivation and driving forces behind the responses to the questions. Their findings showed that Palestinians who chose to move to the Palestinian state felt a significant national identity. If refugees enjoyed relative equality, as they do in Jordan, or if they owned homes and land in their place of residency, they were more likely to want to stay where they were. Socio-economic considerations were also important, with those with lower and middle levels of income wishing to go to the Palestinian state.

See the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research’s Web site (<www.pcpsr.org>) for more information and the complete survey.

—D.C.H.

< Prev		Next >