Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees:
International Law and Humanitarian Considerations
When Israel was created in 1948, Arab states and Arab Palestinians attacked the Jewish community in Palestine and the Jewish state, vowing to "drive the Jews into the sea." They lost the war however, and some 725,000 Arab Palestinians fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Thousands of Jews were displaced from areas conquered by the Arab forces as well, and some became refugees for a while.In December 1948, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 called for return of refugees who were willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Jewish refugees, including refugees from Palestinian Arab areas and hundreds of thousands of others expelled from Arab lands, were absorbed into Israel and did not claim refugee status. Arab refugees were placed in camps.

Palestinian Arabs claim that any peace agreement with Israel must allow the descendants and families of these refugees, numbering about 4 million, to return to Israel. This is the position adopted at present (2006) by the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmud Abbas, enunciated in the "moderate" Palestinian Prisoners' Document and presented as well by Palestinian negotiators at Taba in 2001: In the Palestinian "compromise" proposal, all refugees would return to Israel gradually. Jews would became a minority in their own state. Return of the refugees would put an end to Jewish self determination and the Jewish homeland, yet Arab Palestinians and their supporters insist that this solution is "justice" demanded by international law. Here, we examine the legal and humanitarian considerations behind this claim.

Rights of Refugees under Resolution 194
UN General Assembly Resolution 194 was passed immediately following the assassination of UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte by Jewish extremists. Bernadotte had asked for return of all Arab refugees (but not Jewish refugees) and was going to recommend removing large areas of the Israeli state and returning them to the Arabs. The resolution reflected in part, UN anger at Israel for having allowed the assassination, but it did not reflect Bernadotte's recommendations in full. Section 11 referred to the refugee problem:

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 property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;


Notable in this wording, is the fact that a "right of return" was not mentioned, and the reference to "refugees," rather than "Arab refugees" and "governments," rather than the government of Israel. This implies that the framers had in mind the rights of Jewish refugees in Palestine as well, and would also be applicable to Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries as a result of the conflict. The number of Jews were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries because of the conflict is about equal to the number of Arab Palestinian refugees.

Bernadotte had recommended a much stronger resolution, but his reference to a "right" of return was rejected. The original wording of his report included this wording:

“the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date… and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return…”

(Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, UN Doc. A/648 (18 September, 1948)

As this wording was rejected, the framers of resolution 194 apparently rejected the notion of a "right" of return. Likewise, reference to "Arab refugees" was omitted. It could not have been accidental.

All Arab states voted against Resolution 194, because it did not establish a “right of return,” and because it implicitly recognized Israel. Arab governments and Palestinians continued to reject resolution 194 until 1988. In that year, Yasser Arafat made a speech Recognizing Resolution 242 and implicitly accepting resolution 194. Until then, Arab Palestinians were officially not willing to "live in peace with their neighbors." Arab governments are still unwilling to repatriate or compensate Jewish refugees, nor is such a solution contemplated in Palestinian peace proposals.

To deal with the refugee problem, the UN created the UNRWA agency, which was thought to be a temporary measure until a permanent resolution of the refugee problem could be effected. Because Arab states refused any constructive solution, the "temporary" solution became permanent.

Resolution 194 is not International Law
Resolutions of the UN General assembly are not binding in international law, and therefore resolution 194 does not establish any principle of international law. Palestinian Arab advocates point out that Israel agreed to accept resolution 194 as a condition of its admittance to the UN, under Resolution 273. However, Israel accepted the resolution under its own interpretation. In any case, Resolution 273 is likewise a resolution of the General Assembly and therefore not international law.

Status of the Palestinian Refugees in International Law
Advocates of the Palestinian cause claim support from international laws and conventions applicable to refugees in general. However, examination of refugee conventions shows that precisely the opposite is true. For example, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, states:

This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

That excludes Palestinian refugees who are receiving aid separately from the UNRWA. The same convention states:

E. This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.

Palestinian refugees in Jordan have obtained Jordanian nationality. About 1.5 million such "refugees" are included in official UN tallies of Palestinian refugees. Numerous Palestinians living in the United States have obtained United States citizenship, but claim "right of return." None of them would be eligible for refugee status under ordinary international law.

The convention does not mention a "right of return," but only mentions that refugees may not be forcibly returned to a country where they are liable to persecution.

In their treatment of Palestinian refugees, Arab states do not generally respect provisions of the treaty dealing with economic rights of refugees:

Article 21. Housing

As regards housing, the Contracting States, in so far as the matter is regulated by laws or regulations or is subject to the control of public authorities, shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances.

Article 22. Public education

1. The Contracting States shall accord to refugees the same treatment as is accorded to nationals with respect to elementary education.

2. The Contracting States shall accord to refugees treatment as favourable as possible, and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances, with respect to education other than elementary education and, in particular, as regards access to studies, the recognition of foreign school certificates, diplomas and degrees, the remission of fees and charges and the award of scholarships.

Article 23. Public relief

The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.

In Lebanon, the entire responsibility for education and housing of Palestinian refugees is placed on UNRWA. Refugees are confined to the UNRWA camps insofar as possible, and given as little assistance as possible in integration within Lebanese society.

No international convention deals with the status of third generation refugees or "refugees" by intermarriage. This case is unique to the Palestinians.

A search of the Internet for terms refugees "Right of Return" will display exclusively or almost exclusively Web pages that deal with Palestinian refugees. "Right of Return" is never discussed for Germans expelled from the Sudetensland or Silesia in 1945, for Poles who fled the Soviets when they annexed parts of Eastern Poland, for Russians who fled from former Soviet Republics upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Right of Return was discussed but never implemented in solution of the Cyprus problem. Return of refugees is being implemented in part in breakaway parts of former Yugoslavia, but in these cases there is no doubt that the returnees are willing to recognize the existing government and "live in peace with their neighbors." The claim that Right of Return is a universally applied principle of international law has now basis.

Palestinian supporters claim that the right of return is recognized in international in human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights However the applicability of these provisions to Palestinian Arab refugees is in doubt.

According to Article 12(4) of the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

To whom does the article apply? Stig Jagerskiold, an early interpreter, wrote:

"This right is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claim of masses of people who have been displaced as a byproduct of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries. Whatever the merits of various "irredentist" claims, or those of masses of refugees who wish to return to the place where they originally lived, the Covenant does not deal with those issues and cannot be invoked to support the right to "return." These claims will require international political solutions on a large scale." (Freedom of Movement, in The International Bill of Rights 166, at 180 (Louis Henkin ed., 1981).

Likewise, another expert has noted:

"There is no evidence that mass movements of groups such as refugees or displaced persons were intended to be included within the scope of article 12 of the Covenant by its drafters" (Horst Hannum, The Right to Leave and Return in International Law and Practice (1987) p.59)

Return is no longer practical
The Arab Palestinian refugee problem has been deliberately perpetuated by the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters for almost 60 years, after which time there is no practical way to return the original refugees, many of whom are no longer alive. Their descendants have married non-Palestinians and non-Arabs, so that many of the people claiming "right" of "return" were never in Palestine, and are descended from people who were never in Palestine. It is highly doubtful that such persons are entitled to "refugee" status under international law.

Israeli actions to ameliorate the refugee problem
Israeli attempts to resettle refugees outside the camps were blocked because of objections of Arab states.

Israel has allowed more than 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program. Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property. As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed. Claims were settled for more than 200,000 dunams of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunams of replacement land had been given in compensation. No compensation has ever been paid to any of the more than 600,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were forced to leave and abandon their property.

Malicious Intent of the Right of Return Claim
The claims to right of return as a "just" solution of the Palestinian refugee problem must be viewed in the light of the intent of the claimants. This intent has been announced repeatedly and openly: To destroy Jewish self-determination and the state of Israel

The post-war Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, stated:

... in demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or to put it quite clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel. (Al-Misri, 11 October 1949, as quoted by N. Feinberg, p109)

Similarly, Egypt’s President Nasser stated:

If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist. (Neue Zuercher Zeitung, September 1, 1960)

A Fatah Web site states:

To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state. (http://www.fateh.net/e_public/refugees.htm)

To this end, Arab governments and Palestinian groups have acted in bad faith to prevent a solution to the problem. Ralph Galloway, formerly director of UN aid to the Palestinians in Jordan, stated:

The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die. (Ralph Galloway, UNRWA, as quoted by Terence Prittie in The Palestinians: People History, Politics, p 71)

While decrying the plight of the piteous refugees supposedly victimized by Israeli aggressors, Arab governments have caused the UN to pass resolutions that decried Israeli attempts to resettle refugees in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Any effort by Israel to improve the living conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip or to give them new homes outside the refugee camps, was met with UN resolutions with wording such as this:

1. Calls once more upon Israel to desist from removal and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destruction of their shelters;

2. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly by the opening of the thirty-fifth session on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 above. ( UN A/RES/34/52(A-F) 23 November 1979 )

As noted above, the most conciliatory position of the Palestinians, presented in the Taba in 2001 negotiations, called for actual return of all Palestinian refugees over an extended period. This would have the effect of destroying Israel as a Jewish state, gradually if not immediately. Other proposals are more drastic in their effects. Thus, the intent of pressing right of return claims is certainly to destroy the Jewish state, in violation of several provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law.

The right of self-determination, guaranteed in the UN Charter, is reiterated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article I, Part I, opens the convention with the following declaration:

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The right to self determination is recognized universally, by Palestinians as well, as a jus cogens - compelling law, that takes precedence over other considerations. The right of self-determination was the basis of creation of the Jewish state of Israel, and was cited in the debates leading to the UN partition decision. It is absurd for Palestinians to claim the right to a state under this provision, while at the same time claiming that "justice" demands the "right" of return, which would prevent the Jewish people from exercising their own right to self determination, and would result in destruction of a member state of the UN.

Ami Isseroff

Finally an article that makes legal sense on the issue rather than the mythology that usually gets tosed around here.

Members of the public can also help by signing the Foreign Lobby Registration Act, which seeks to provide transparency and accountability for organizations such as AIPAC that work for foreign interests, not those of the United States.

Ten years after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu summoned a group of American policy makers to recommend strategies and policies that would best serve the interests of Israel, the implications of these recommendations outlined in the document entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” are finally becoming a reality. Grant Smith, the director of research at the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, spoke on August 29 at the Palestine Center, Washington, DC on the objectives of the Clean Break Plan, the targets it has already archived, and its flaws.

During his critical review, Smith focused on the Plan's six major aims. The first goal was to increase congressional support for Israel. By using unifying Cold War rhetoric and identifying Israel as a country with Western values, policy advisers hoped that members of Congress would more readily agree to support Israel.

The second purpose was to destabilize, contain, and weaken countries in the region that challenge Israel’s existence. Redrawing the map of the Middle East, questioning the legitimacy of Syria and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction within that country, rejecting the concept of land for peace as a bargaining tool, and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq were all recommendations that would strengthen the status of Israel in the Middle East.

The third objective was Israel’s intention to use peace for peace as a bargaining tool in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as attempt to achieve a balance of power within the region. By rejecting the idea of land for peace as a possible resolution to the conflict and finding an alternative leader to Yasser Arafat, Israel would improve its ability to survive. The use of military power in the region to enforce or replace peace would further serve Israel’s interests.

Smith briefly discussed the intent to reform Israel’s economy, as well as the goal to anticipate and plan around the reactions from the United States and the worldwide community. The final objective was to rejuvenate the influence of Zionism that would work in Israel’s favor.

The chief criticism Smith spoke of was the lack of respect and reference for international law and democracy. The Clean Break Plan ignores the basic principles and purpose of both, as well as its key applicability for Israel and all of the Middle East. Following through with the recommendations listed in the Clean Break Plan would negatively affect international law and undermine the reputation of the United States.

Smith drew attention to the ongoing case of the AIPAC spies, now proceeding to trial in Alexandria, Virginia. Rosen and Weissman are two former pro-Israeli lobbyists are charged with illegally receiving classified information on Iran through wiretaps. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), wiretapping is legal for material to which the public does not have access. However, if the two men are found to have completed the wiretaps for the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), they could be convicted of espionage.

AIPAC could also be found in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires foreign agents to provide transparency in their activities and financial accounts. If AIPAC is classified as a foreign agent, it will be required to submit detailed statements on political activities and financial transactions, which are crippling in themselves. Under these conditions, the secrecy with which the organization has traditionally (and successfully) worked, could not be sustained. It would limit the ability of the group to lobby effectively, possibly leading to a permanent end to AIPAC activities.

These various scenarios are discussed in Ron Kampeas' article in The Jewish Telegraphic Agency “New Ruling in AIPAC case raises questions about ‘foreign agents’.”

Jewish leaders are vigilant, but are not yet overly concerned since the trial has not yet been scheduled. Although AIPAC refuses to comment, Kampeas quotes a source stating that the organization is not worried about the possible consequences of the case.

Currently, AIPAC is one organization that is not required under FARA to report its activities and finances, allowing it to maintain a veil of secrecy about its work from the American people as well as the government. The Rosen/Weissman case provides the opportunity to plug a glaring legal loophole. Smith argued at the end of his talk that Israel’s manipulation of the United States’ foreign policy can only be stopped by legal recourse.

Members of the public can also help by signing the Foreign Lobby Registration Act, which seeks to provide transparency and accountability for organizations such as AIPAC that work for foreign interests, not those of the United States.

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/cnif/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2678

"The post-war Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, stated:

... in demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or to put it quite clearly ? the intention is the extermination of Israel. (Al-Misri, 11 October 1949, as quoted by N. Feinberg, p109)

Similarly, Egypt?s President Nasser stated:

If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist. (Neue Zuercher Zeitung, September 1, 1960)

A Fatah Web site states:

To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state. (http://www.fateh.net/e_public/refugees.htm) ".

Maybe it is time to entertain the idea of no more Israel??? They have had their 'state' based on religious supremism now for awhile and just rained state sponsored terror in the region.

After all, we've read about how oppressive Israel is to its minorities. We've read about the institutionalized racism and apartheid status of non Jews. Yet so many Palestinians want to live in Israel - so much that they make it a condition of peace. I'm confused. If its so bad, why do they want to move to Israel ?
Why don't they want to live in their own land? Any explanations?

>Why don't they want to live in their own land?

They do. Israel wont let them.

The London-based newspaper Al-Hayat reported oN Sept. 5th that the
kidnapped Israeli hostage, Gilad Shalit is now in Egypt as part of a
deal to release him. The paper reported that Shalit was brought to Egypt
a short while ago in return for guarantees that Israel would release 800
Palestinian prisoners in three stages.

Al-Hayat also reported that Hamas retracted its demand that Shalit be
released at the same time as the prisoners.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen said that a prisoner exchange
agreement has been reached in which Gilad Shalit will be returned to
Israel. In an interview with a Bahraini newspaper, Abu Mazen said Shalit
will be transferred to Egypt and held there until Israel carries out its
part of the deal.

No Israeli government official would comment on this report

THE RIGHT OF RETURN

Khalil Shikaki

RAMALLAH, West Bank- When the Palestinian national movement decided in the mid-1970s to abandon the ideology of liberating all of historic Palestine in favor of a two-state solution, it failed to explain to its refugee constituency the implications of that shift for their right of return to their homes and towns inside Israel. Once it had agreed to a division of the land, it could not have logically advocated a division of the people with some becoming Israeli and others Palestinian.

As a national movement, the PLO stood for self-determination and the protection of the national identity. Fear of losing legitimacy in the eyes of its largest constituency -- the refugees-- deterred the PLO leadership from confronting the emerging anomaly: how can you be a Palestinian nationalist and at the same time advocate the de-Palestinianization of a large segment of your people.

Perhaps the most surprising finding I came out with from the refugee surveys that I have conducted among 4500 refugee families in the West Bank-Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Jordan in the first half of this year is the extent to which the refugees -- without help from their own leaders -- have internalized the dramatic shift and have acted on it, favoring their national identity over land and legacy.

We have always known that almost all refugees viewed the right of return as sacred and can never be abandoned. Now we know also that only 10% of the refugees surveyed want to exercise the right of return in Israel. The overwhelming majority want to exercise the same right in the state of Palestine in the West Bank-Gaza Strip. While a small number is willing to immigrate to third countries, like Canada, the US, or Australia, a large number of refugees in Jordan elected to stay in that host country. Less than 10% of those seeking to go to Israel -- 1% of all surveyed refugees  will seek an Israeli citizenship upon returning to Israel; the rest want Palestinian, and in some cases Jordanian, citizenship.

Needless to say, what facilitated the decision for the majority of the Palestinian refugees in seeking to live in a Palestinian state is the fact that their national identity can still be embodied in a part of the historic homeland; they can have the best of the two worlds: to be on the land, and with the people, of Palestine.

The significance of this finding should not be underestimated. We have always recognized the timidity of the Palestinian leadership in addressing the issue of refugees. Today, we need to see how courageous the Israeli leadership can be.

It is now clear that an Israeli recognition of the refugees right of return does not carry with it the kind of risks Israelis have always feared. Yet, only the recognition of that right can give Israel what it seeks: to close the refugees file without undermining its Jewish character. It is a win-win situation for all: the refugees, driven by a deep historic collective consciousness, can have the right to choose; the Israelis, driven by a very old search for security in a Jewish majority, can finally breathe with relief; and the Palestinian national movement can feel the pride embodied in the triumph of the national identity.

All pay a price. To exercise self-determination, the refugees need to build new homes and lives in a new environment. The process of their socio-economic and political integration could be extremely painful. To close the file, the Israelis need to face up to their responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem. They need to accept guilt and responsibility sharing it with all others: the British with their unjust mandate and the Arab countries that did little or nothing about the terrible refugee suffering of more than fifty years. To protect the national identity of its people, the Palestinians state will have to prepare for the absorption of more than 750,000 refugees in the first five years of its existence. It must plan for this process lest it becomes yet another catastrophe for the Palestinian people as a whole. For all, the challenges are tremendous and the task painful.

Reducing the risks and pain for all is a task only the US can undertake. Israelis will ask for assurances that the exercise of the right of return by going to Israel will not exceed an agreed limit and the Palestinians will seek assurances that the right to choose is real, not merely symbolic. The financial and logistical requirements will be enormous requiring significant US investment and sustained commitment.

Some among the Palestinians and the Israelis will resist the logic embodied in the findings of my surveys. By doing so, they will perpetuate the conflict indefinitely. Those who attacked my center and me on 13 July, seeking to prevent the release of the surveys findings, acted on the belief that scared rights cannot be tampered with, not even by other refugees, let alone researchers. This unhealthy obsession with idealized rights at the expense of vital, or even existential, needs threatens to perpetuate the suffering of millions of refugees. Rights and suffering need not go together, not for so long.

Those in Israel who would continue to keep alive the myth that an Israeli recognition of the right of return is tantamount to committing national suicide are responsible for the continued impasse at the negotiating front and the persistent suffering at the human front. Admitting guilt and responsibility is hard, but people and nations do it quite often without fearing for their survival. Indeed, it is a sign of maturity and security.

While more survey research is needed to verify the details of my findings, the essential compromise is now clear and it is a win-win solution: Israel must recognize the right while the Palestinian state must shoulder the bulk of responsibility for its exercise. It would be a mistake for the US and the international community to let hardliners on both sides perpetuate the agony and the conflict.

Mr. Shikaki is the director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, in Ramallah.

maybe you would like to wade through the hidden area.
Personally, I think three consecutive violations should result in banning.

So, if 9/11 was a neo-con Zionist plot, how come there are tapes from Bin Laden with the hijackers ? And how come Al Jizzera is releasing these tapes? Is Al- Jizzera in on it to? The only news source that Indymedia trusts, and its part of the crypto-Zio-neocon plot! What shall we do?

Because they are cheaper than staples.
Please give us a huge break and don't bring up another tape which might be
a little more believable then the other tapes. Which were so fake it was funny. Now I know you want everyone to believe that this one is real.
But don't hold your breath on it.

And would Al Jizzera be playing them if they thought they were fake? Then they would be playing right into the hands of the plotters. So Al Jizzera must believe they are real. (unless they are in on it too.) In that case, everything they say is suspect. About everything.

Why would Al Jizzera play them if they believed them to be a fraud?
Is Al Jizzera in on it?
Are they just that ignorant that they can't tell the difference (Maybe you should fill out an application there and help them out)

What the hell is a repost from the Wall Street Journal doing on Indymedia!?!

Are you suggesting that Aljazeera CENSOR their news?
Just because it smells like, looks like and is crap?

Such talk.
Oh by the way, this is the link to Aljazeera.
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
now everyone can read the crap. See?
I'm so fair with you individuals...

Still laughing though...

... but only because there is no longer an Egyptian Jewish community to speak of. We once were over 80,000. Today there are fewer than 50 Jews remaining in Egypt, according to one official tally. Indeed, once thriving Jewish communities in 10 Arab countries were likewise cleansed. Today, only about 5,000 Jews remain in the Arab Muslim world, mostly in Morocco and Tunisia. Arab sympathizers blame the creation of Israel, but in reality Middle Eastern Jewry began to deteriorate years before Israel was established.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Egypt was a much more cosmopolitan place than it is today. Whatever the broader ills of colonialism, Egypt under British rule was at least a place where Muslims, Jews, and Christians got along fairly harmoniously. But all this began to change as the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group two of the offspring of which are Hamas and Al Qaeda, began agitating against both the British and the Jews.

Along with the rise of Arab nationalism and Arab independence, life for Jews in Egypt and other Arab countries became intolerable. All this started happening years before Israel was established. Within a 20-year period starting in 1945, nearly a million Jews were forced out of Arab countries. Being Jewish was criminalized in Egypt in the late 1940s. Other Arab states such as Iraq, Libya, and Syria, passed similar laws. Jews began facing iron walls of discrimination and harassment by the authorities. Most of us were dispossessed. Our schools, homes, synagogues, businesses, farms, and hospitals, were all confiscated by Arab governments. Our rich, 3,000-year-old culture and heritage was decimated. No trial, no jury, no justice.

Mr. Shikaki is the director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, in Ramallah.

He is a Palestinian Author and researcher.

What on earth would prompt you to believe that any new tape would hold any credence when Osoma denied the involvement personally f2f in front of a BBC reporter? 18 Sep 2001, I believe. You want the links? The quotes?

here's the link and quote.
http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html
also the link to Aljazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

is welcome to go and live there, but a non Jew who was born there, but fled or was expelled in 1948 is not. How is this not a racist policy? Be specific.

Love to see how these prisoners from israeli torture centers or dungeons court records read.
It would be an interesting read.
How many thousand are still being held from the 1980's invasion into Lebanon?

Those zionists , as usual. got the Jews to take the heat.

word salad? Hmmmm. Okay, there's something better than 'forced to wear'.
You just don't like real world dynamics to interfere with your delicate framework of canned propaganda.
When zionists kill Muslims, Christians and children to clear a land of its people, you're bound to acquire a bad PR problem. Particularly because like the cowardly little grease weasel that you are ( I mean you, asshole ) tends to smear their sh*t on the non involved parties, like the majority of sane peaceful serious honest folk.
You know damned well your facade here is ruinous to the Jewish future. Also to the zionist future as they drag us all into hell with their well groomed lies and political support apparatus.

"It's much worse": Anti-Apartheid Activist Farid Esack Speaks on Palestine and South Africa
Audio, The Electronic Intifada, 9 September 2006
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5709.shtml


Farid Esack spoke at the Oak Park public library on September 6, 2006 as part of the Committee for Just Peace in Israel and Palestine's 2006-2007 Community Education and Dialogue Series, "Building a Just Peace: Important Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict."

How is the current situation in Israel/Palestine similar to that of apartheid-era South Africa? How is it different? Is Zionism a form of racism? What can we learn from the South African experience to strengthen and empower the movement for justice and peace in Palestine and Israel? Leading South African Muslim Theologian and anti-apartheid activist Farid Esack addressed these questions in a timely engaging and moving lecture at Oak Park Public Library in Illinois on September 6, 2006, an event hosted and sponsored by the The Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine.

As an activist in the interreligious solidarity movement for justice and peace during the struggle against Apartheid, Esack played a leading role in the United Democratic Front, the Call of Islam, the Organisation of People Against Sexism, and the World Conference on Religion and Peace.

Esack is the author of numerous publications, including Qur'an, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity Against Oppression; On Being a Muslim: Finding a Religious Path in the World Today; and An Introduction to the Qur'an. His current major field of interest and commitment is Islam and AIDS. He has also published widely on Islam, gender, liberation theology, interfaith relations, religion and identity, and Qur'anic hermeneutics. Esack was appointed a national commissioner on gender equality by President Nelson Mandela. He has taught at the University of the Western Cape, at Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Gadjah Mada Universities, and at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He was Distinguished Mason Fellow at the College of William and Mary, and he recently completed a three-year term as the Besl Professor in Ethics, Religion, and Society at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio.