Evelyn Gordon
Analysis from Israel

The equal-rights case for emigration

Published June 6, 2014

Why are Palestinians the only refugees in the world denied the right of third-country resettlement?

Last week, I argued that the growing importance of demographic arguments for ceding territory makes it vital for Israel to determine what the demographic facts really are. This, incidentally, is true even for supporters of a two-state solution: There’s a big difference between having to withdraw immediately, at any cost, to avoid imminent demographic doom and having another few decades in which to seek an agreement.

But the lack of hard data is compounded by another problem: the assumption that demographic facts, whatever they may be, are largely immutable.

In reality, there are three ways to change demographic balances: immigration, emigration and natural increase. But only the first receives any attention at all from Israeli policy-makers, because in a brilliant feat of brainwashing, the other two have been successfully branded as racist, anti-democratic and contrary to human rights.

With regard to natural increase, this could be due to simple ignorance of what a rational policy entails (which I’ll explain next week). But with regard to emigration, it’s downright Orwellian. Because what really violates human rights is the fact that Palestinians are the only refugees in the world denied the fundamental right of resettlement.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which deals with all refugees worldwide except Palestinians, resettles tens of thousands of people every year (about 70,000 annually from 2008-2012). But UNRWA, the agency created to deal exclusively with Palestinian refugees, hasn’t resettled a single one in 66 years, because resettlement isn’t in its mandate. Instead, it seeks to keeps both the original displaced persons and all their descendants as perpetual refugees, vainly awaiting a “return” to Israel that will never happen unless Israel ceases to exist. And the rest of the world – especially the “enlightened” West, which funds most of UNRWA’s budget – shamefully abets this gross violation of Palestinian rights.

To understand the nature of this abuse, consider Yoav Sorek’s account in Mosaic of what ensued when he and a friend, citing surveys showing that 40 percent of Gazans want to leave, asked a representative of ECHO, the European Union’s humanitarian aid agency, why the agency didn’t try to help them do so.

His reply was startling in its candor. “Are you kidding? 40 percent? It’s probably 99 percent. All of them want to leave!” Well, we repeated, have you thought of helping them? “No, never.” Why not? “Because if they leave, it’d be like releasing Israel from its responsibility for the nakba.” 

In other words, Palestinians are being denied a fundamental right enjoyed by all other refugees for the sake, as Sorek aptly put it, “of a political vendetta.” Or to put it more bluntly, in a vain effort to undo Israel’s establishment in 1948. For on that very day, five Arab armies aided by Palestinian irregulars invaded the newborn state, resulting in the refugee crisis Palestinians term the Nakba. Only by deeming Israel’s very creation a crime could you hold it responsible for the outcome of a war started by the Arabs themselves with intent to annihilate it.

But whether or not Sorek’s 40 percent figure is accurate, many Palestinians clearly don’t want to be sacrificed on the altar of this vendetta. Even PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi inadvertently admitted as much in an October 2012 interview with Haaretz: “The worst thing that can happen to Palestinians is to keep having this hemorrhage of people leaving,” she complained. And if Palestinians are “hemorrhaging” even in the absence of any resettlement aid, more would likely leave if offered the same assistance given other refugees worldwide.

My fellow columnist Martin Sherman has argued that Israel should simply provide this aid itself: The country can afford it, and the long-term benefits would outweigh the costs. But Palestinians would more readily accept aid from an international organization like UNHCR than from Israel; other countries would more readily accede to resettlement requests from UNHCR than from Israel; an UNHCR declaration that the refugees were refugees no longer would carry more international weight than an Israeli one; and an Israeli-run program would likely generate massive international opposition, because it would be portrayed as mere jockeying for advantage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than as giving Palestinians a basic right that they have been denied for far too long. Thus while Israel could and should contribute to such an effort, attempting to resettle Palestinian refugees all by itself probably wouldn’t work.

But at the very least, Israel and its overseas supporters should be demanding loudly and clearly, in every possible venue, that the “international community” give Palestinians the same rights as other refugees. While forcing Palestinians to leave if they don’t want to would obviously be unacceptable, it’s neither “racist” nor “anti-democratic” to demand that they receive the same resettlement assistance given to other refugees. Indeed, it’s racist and anti-democratic to deny them this right.

Granted, this argument has an obvious flaw: Aside from some 540,000 Palestinians caught in Syria’s civil war, most of the five million listed as refugees by UNRWA aren’t actually refugees at all. They’re descendants of genuine refugees, but they themselves were never displaced; they’ve lived all their lives in the same spot. In fact, most of them live in their very own state, if you believe the 138 countries who voted to declare “Palestine” a state at the UN just 18 months ago. Consequently, they don’t qualify as refugees under UNHCR’s definition, which applies to everyone in the world except Palestinians; they’re considered refugees only because under UNRWA’s warped definition, refugeehood is inherited by a refugee’s descendants in perpetuity.

Personally, I’d rather end this anomaly, dismantle UNRWA and strip these fictitious refugees of their status. Among other reasons, the world’s real refugees would benefit greatly if all the money now wasted on fake refugees were spent on them instead.

But since the “international community” shows no signs of being willing to do this, Israel should at least stop letting its hypocrisy go unchallenged. If the world insists on treating these Palestinians as refugees, then Israel should insist it grant them the same right granted to all other refugees – the right to internationally assisted resettlement.

Posted in Peace Process
Originally Published in: The Jerusalem Post

Original Link: http://www.jpost.com/Experts/The-equal-rights-case-for-emigration-355222

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Featured Post

Why Israel Needs a Better Political Class

Note: This piece is a response to an essay by Haviv Rettig Gur, which can be found here

Israel’s current political crisis exemplifies the maxim that hard cases make bad law. This case is desperate. Six months after the coronavirus erupted and nine months after the fiscal year began, Israel still lacks both a functioning contact-tracing system and an approved 2020 budget, mainly because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more worried about politics than the domestic problems that Israel now confronts. The government’s failure to perform these basic tasks obviously invites the conclusion that civil servants’ far-reaching powers must not only be preserved, but perhaps even increased.

This would be the wrong conclusion. Bureaucrats, especially when they have great power, are vulnerable to the same ills as elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they are completely unaccountable to the public.

That doesn’t mean Haviv Rettig Gur is wrong to deem them indispensable. They provide institutional memory, flesh out elected officials’ policies, and supply information the politicians may not know and options they may not have considered. Yet the current crisis shows in several ways why they neither can nor should substitute for elected politicians.

First, bureaucrats are no less prone to poor judgment than politicians. As evidence, consider Siegal Sadetzki, part of the Netanyahu-led triumvirate that ran Israel’s initial response to the coronavirus. It’s unsurprising that Gur never mentioned Sadetzki even as he lauded the triumvirate’s third member, former Health Ministry Director General Moshe Bar Siman-Tov; she and her fellow Health Ministry staffers are a major reason why Israel still lacks a functional test-and-trace system.

Sadetzki, an epidemiologist, was the ministry’s director of public-health services and the only member of the triumvirate with professional expertise in epidemics (Bar Siman-Tov is an economist). As such, her input was crucial. Yet she adamantly opposed expanding virus testing, even publicly asserting that “Too much testing will increase complacence.” She opposed letting organizations outside the public-health system do lab work for coronavirus tests, even though the system was overwhelmed. She opposed sewage monitoring to track the spread of the virus. And on, and on.

Moreover, even after acknowledging that test-and-trace was necessary, ministry bureaucrats insisted for months that their ministry do the tracing despite its glaringly inadequate manpower. Only in August was the job finally given to the army, which does have the requisite personnel. And the system still isn’t fully operational.

Read more
Archives