 |
| Volume VIII, June 2001, Number 2 |
| |
| ABSTRACT: Clearing Up the Right-of-Return Confusion |
| |
| Jerome M. Segal |
| |
Dr. Segal is a research scholar at the Institute for
Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland. He is a co-author of Negotiating Jerusalem (SUNY Press, 2000).
A few weeks prior to the February election, some of the best minds on the Israeli left (Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman,
etc.) issued, in the Israeli press, a letter to the Palestinian
leadership. After noting that they have
struggled for over 30 years for the two-state solution, the signers forcefully
stated that they shall never be able to agree to the return of the refugees to
within the borders of Israel. Instead they affirmed that "the refugees will
have the right to return to their homeland, Palestine, and settle there." For
the best minds, this was not their best thinking. By introducing "the right to return to their homeland,
Palestine," the signers appear to be rejecting the key Palestinian demand for
recognition of their right to return to their homes in Israel. In doing this,
they reinforced the conflation of two quite different matters: the Palestinian right
to return and the actual return of the Palestinians. Rather than
merging these two, it is important to sharpen an awareness of the distinction.
Unfortunately, by addressing their message to the Palestinian
leadership, the signers of the statement have perpetuated a dangerous
misunderstanding of the deadlock in the negotiations. The Palestinian
leadership seeks some formal recognition of Palestinian rights. They are not
seeking the return of millions of refugees to Israel. This, they understand, is
quite impossible. They are seeking a choice-based approach that will provide
the refugees with a variety of structured options, of incentives and
disincentives, such that only a small percentage will actually choose to return
to Israel.
The problem with the
statement is that it represents the Palestinians as seeking to overwhelm Israel
with refugees. As such they are portrayed as seeking Israel's destruction. This
portrayal can serve only as the basis for concluding that the Palestinians have
no real interest in a negotiated solution and that diplomacy has exhausted its
potential. But if diplomacy has exhausted its potential, then what need is
there for a prime minister committed to the peace process? The stage is set for
a military response, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon.
|
| |
|
