The Foreign Service Journal, December 2006

millions of Palestinian refugees would return to Israel, which would then no longer be a Jewish state, as some media commentators have argued. The statement about the refugees, with its reference to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, was carefully worded and negotiated and was no doubt a disappointment to many refugees, but the Palestinian leadership accepted it. What it calls for is an agreement, obviously by negoti- ations among the parties concerned, most importantly Israel, and it was well understood that Israel would never agree to massive repatriation of large numbers of refugees to its territory. But the “right of return” would be recognized (as stated in 194) and compensation would be paid to those not returning (also as called for by 194). Here is the relevant part of UNGA Resolution 194: 11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the prop- erty of those choosing not to return and for loss of or dam- age to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the govern- ments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social reha- bilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensa- tion, and to maintain close relations with the director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations. Dealing with Hamas There has, of course, been concern that Hamas, the winner in the Palestinian elections in January 2006, is committed to the “destruction” of Israel, and therefore there is no longer any serious support by Palestinians for the Arab League Initiative. That is something we should be exploring; but instead, we refuse to talk to Hamas, dis- missing it as a “terrorist organization.” We and other powers have admonished Hamas to rec- ognize the right of Israel to exist, to renounce violence and to accept agreements previously signed by the Palestinian authorities. A rational response by Hamas might be: “We will recognize Israel if it accepts the Arab Peace Initiative and withdraws to the June 1967 lines, cancels the illegal annexations of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the portions of the West Bank included in expanded Jerusalem, returns the Golan Heights to Syria, recog- nizes the right of the Palestinians to establish their own state in the 22 percent of the Palestine mandate not included in Israel prior to 1967, renounces violence against the Palestinians and all of the other Arab states, and begins implementing all of the agreements made with the Palestinian authorities that it has ignored or vio- lated.” This would be a balanced outcome, not a one-sided proposal that requires the Palestinians to do lots of things and requires Israel to do nothing. A sweetener to this peace agreement would be the release of thousands of Palestinian and other Arab prisoners Israel is holding, and the return to Israel of the three Israeli soldiers taken prisoner by the Gazans and Hezbollah. When conflicts end there is supposed to be an exchange of prisoners of war — which is what these people are. Is this proposed peace plan unfair to Israel? The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 awarded 52 percent of British mandate Palestine to Israel, at a time when the Jewish population owned about 6 percent of the land, and they were perhaps one third of the territory’s population. At the end of the 1947-1949 War, Israel held 78 percent of the territory. How can Palestinians be reasonably expect- ed to find this fair? UNSC Resolution 242 forbade the acquisition of land by force of arms. Contrary to the phraseology employed by our media, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not “captured” or “conquered” by Israel. They were occu- pied by Israel. This land does not belong to Israel and cannot belong to it. Israel is not free to dispose of it as it pleases. It must be returned to the millions of stateless Palestinian people, many living as refugees for the past nearly 60 years. Israeli scholar Mark Heller long ago made an interest- ing suggestion for what to do with the Israeli settlements on the West Bank in the context of a permanent peace. He estimated that 80 percent of the settlers were not fanatic “redeemers” of land promised by their God to the Jewish people, but were there because of nice, inexpen- sive housing from which they commuted to jobs in Israel proper. So, they would be happy to be bought out hand- somely so that they could move to equivalent housing in Israel. Heller proposed that Saudi Arabia buy the settlements for, say, $10 billion. While some might object to compen- sating people for something illegal they had done, it could F O C U S 50 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 6