 |
| Volume VIII, March 2001, Number 1 |
| |
| ABSTRACT: Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon: Implantation, Transfer or Return? |
| |
| Rosemary Sayigh |
| |
Dr. Sayigh is an anthropologist and oral historian currently engaged in recording
displacement narratives of Palestinian women. She is the author of The
Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries (London: Zed Books, 1979) and
Too Many Enemies: The Palestinian Experience in Lebanon (London: Zed
Books, 1994).
The situation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon has always been the least secure
of the Arab host countries, and recent developments point to an aggravation of
insecurity. The Lebanese government continues to press its demand that all the
refugees must return (ie. leave Lebanon). On the ground there is competition
between Arafat and the pro-Damascus resistance groups for control of the
'Palestinian card,' at times erupting in conflict. Although somewhat abated,
hostility towards the refugees on the part of some Lebanese, mainly Catholic
Christians and Shiites, is easily stirred up by media campaigns that present
the camps as stockpiles of weapons, immune to Lebanese control. A spotlight on
armed Palestinians also serves the Lebanese state by reminding the
international community and its own public of the Palestinian threat. The
success of this campaign is attested to by U.S. sponsorship of the 'Lebanon
First' project. Former assistant secretary of state Phyllis Oakely, in the Washington Post of July 6 (2000),
proposed "an international resettlement program, starting with the
refugees in Lebanon... (which) could prevent the resurgence of Palestinian
violence and terrorism from Lebanon...." The idea was supported by Lebanon and Arafat, with Israeli compliance.
The end of Clinton and the coming of Sharon have buried the 'Lebanon First'
project, but its formulation underlines the uncertain future of the refugees in
Lebanon.
The unlikelihood of any U.S. administration pressuring Israel to re-patriate all or
some of the refugees makes their coercive transfer more likely. Maintaining
Israel as a powerful, Jewish-majority state has been a central element of
America's Middle East policy since 1948, and it is American support that makes
it possible for Israel to refuse refugee repatriation. Syria is another key
regional actor where Lebanese policies towards the refugees are concerned.
However obscure Syrian intentions, the new president has taken a stand against
any scheme for partial resolution of the refugee problem or one that ignores
its Arab dimensions. Jordan also has a
close interest in what happens to the refugees in Lebanon.
Among Lebanon's political groupings, Hizballah's attitude to the Palestinians is of
greatest interest, especially with the election of Sharon, likely to escalate
attacks against both Hizballah and the intifada. But Palestinians realize that
Hizballah cannot be as close an ally as the Lebanese National Movement in the
1970s. Hizballah is constrained by its relationships with Syria, Iran, the
Lebanese state and, most of all, its Shiite constituency, hostile to any return
of armed Palestinians to the South.
The principle of refugee choice is not part of international discourse on
'solutions.' No one calls for polls or plebiscites. A recent small-scale survey
carried out with refugees in Lebanon showed 78.2% opting for return to Palestine,
with 65% specifying their own home or village (in Israel), and 4% accepting
anywhere under the National Authority. Palestinian refugees are by now far too
numerous and too mobilized to be wiped out by the stroke of a pen, and
settlement plans based on ignoring their claims will have to use coercion, and
thus remain impermanent.
|
| |
|
