Home / Table of Contents
Download pdf
  1. Refugees

In dealing with the issue of the Palestinian refugees, I would like to do what I did in the last chapter when considering the impossible issue of Jerusalem. If one wants to follow what is in the Holy Scriptures, it’s important to first set aside personal or societal inclinations that might pull in a different direction. There are historical situations that may be helpful as analogies in refocusing our approach, looking at other situations with similar dynamics. In this way, we can encounter the difficulties of determining what scriptural principles and framework should be applied, and how that is practically possible.

Assuredly, the land of Israel/Palestine is unique in the position accorded to it in the three Holy Scriptures with which we are concerned. Among other things, it is unique in the vast distance between its current status and its prophesied high calling. As Jeremiah lamented, “Is it nothing to you, all you that pass by? Look and see if there is any pain like my pain, which was severely brought upon me, which the Lord has made me suffer in the day of His fierce anger.”1 There is no other land like it, nor any city like Jerusalem.

But there are many cities and lands like it, and the people who have lived in it are much like other people in other places. The political problems and conflicts which have plagued it throughout its history have their parallels in many other cities and lands. Wars, expulsions, and immigrations are more commonplace in human history than we might like them to be. Where is the land or the nation which has not seen them?

Here are a few difficult to resolve situations among many that can be instructive in a search to formulate equitable principles. Equity is an indispensable part of Justice. Principles are applicable regardless of one’s emotions and desires, regardless of one’s personal identification.

  1. A people living in a land they did not rule were displaced by a war in which they did not participate. Most of those who survived lost all their possessions, becoming emigrants, refugees, or displaced persons. The war impoverished the nations involved and changed their national borders. New leaders and new countries replaced those who were responsible for what had happened. These things made restitution and repatriation difficult or impossible.

This is part of the story of the Jewish people in World War Two. Before the war, two of Poland’s powerful neighbors had secretly agreed to devour it and divide the bones among themselves. This resulted in the catastrophe of World War II; and the deaths of six million Jews, the loss of their property and that of those who survived, and the refugee condition of millions of others. At the end of the war, another secret international agreement left Poland to the mercy of one of those merciless, powerful neighbors.

The German province of Silesia was made part of a devastated Poland. Which government should make restitution for what happened to the Jewish people in Silesia? the new divided and impoverished governments of Germany which were now under Allied control and had no connection to Silesia? the new impoverished Polish government which had had no connection to Silesia when the offenses were committed and was now controlled by the Soviet Union? Stalin’s Soviet Union, which was a partner to all the destruction that took place during the war, and now controlled Poland, the Baltic States, and others by conquest? the United States and Great Britain which agreed to the post-war division and Soviet control?

The culpability and responsibility of the perpetrators were hopelessly and impotently entangled. As for the condition of the surviving Jewish people, their property and possessions had been confiscated by several different governments. It was not just that Power was stronger than Justice, it was another situation where Power defined “Justice”.

  1. There was a country where a civil war took place. Each side claimed to be the true patriots. The group that had been governing was forced to flee to a territory outside their country. Two different national governments were proclaimed, one in exile and one newly in power in the land. Each claimed to be the legitimate government, and each claimed that the other was illegitimate.

This is the story of China, the nationalist Chinese led by Chiang Kai-Shek, and the communist Chinese led by Mao. [Or it might be the story of Russia and the communist forces versus the “white Russians”.]

  1. In a particular land, there were multiple indigenous groups with their own communal rule. Sometimes they cooperated with each other; sometimes they warred against each other. An outside people conquered them all and greatly restricted their residency, making them displaced people with no standing in their own land.

This is the story of the native American tribes in the U.S. Many of them are confined to isolated reservation areas where they have very limited self-rule. A paternalistic external government sets the limits.

  1. There is a people with a common ancestry, language, culture, and religion, which has lived for many centuries in a fairly well-defined territory. A thousand years ago, they lived in many semi-independent communal “states”. Though they have strongly retained their identity, they have never had a modern state, and most are currently stateless in their own land, ruled over by several relatively powerful nations which have claimed and incorporated their homelands.

This is part of the story of the Kurds. Their homeland falls within the modern states of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and a little bit in Armenia. In northern Iraq, there is a semi-autonomous district of Kurdistan in a federated Iraq. They have been manipulated and exploited by both internal and external governments. They are often seen by the governments of the nations where they live as being divisive, but they could be a force for cross-national peaceful cohesion.

  1. There is a well-defined people with its own customs, territory, and religion that has been conquered and ruled by several powerful nations. Sometimes those nations war with each other, always they rule over this people.

Kashmir is bordered by India, Pakistan and China, each of which rules part of it — 55%, 30%, and 15% respectively. (Actually, much of the border is with Tibet, rather than China, but Tibet is ruled by China. China is an empire, ruling over many peoples who would prefer to rule themselves, such as the Uighurs.)

The Indo-Chinese war took place in 1962 over Kashmir. India and Pakistan have fought over Kashmir in 1947-48 (following Partition), 1965, 1971, and 1999, with lesser military confrontations in 2010, 2016, and 2019.

In international affairs, power is the most important factor. Economic advantage is probably second. And it is difficult to know where to place, if anywhere, any scriptural definition of Justice. It is usually not part of the equation.

Any political resolution of a problem will be based on power, an attribute which is subject to change over time. The only basis for a just resolution is one of the standards in which justice is supremely important. Such a standard can inform the political process, but is not supreme in that area of human activity. Political issues can be compromised, but Justice cannot be; otherwise it ceases to be Justice, an external standard which humans cannot modify or abridge, though it may contain a principle of compromise.

 

Foreigners in the Land

 

There are some passages in the Bible that are relevant to the discussion of refugees. Before bringing the Children of Israel into the land of Israel, God told them, “The land is not to be sold forever; for the land is Mine; for you are foreigners and sojourners with Me.”2

Humans can “own” a piece of land temporarily, but since the land, and the whole earth, belongs to the Lord, no one is free to do with any part of it whatever they want. There is an obligation to use it in a way that is consistent with the purposes which God has ordained. Even in their own land, the Children of Israel are not to presume an ownership that is independent of God.

The concept that a transient human can “own” part of the planet is very common, if not ubiquitous. But it is also very strange and difficult to justify. How could it be true without authorization from God?

William Blackstone was an eighteenth century English legal philosopher whose writings were extremely influential in the formation of the United States. He said, “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. And yet there are very few that will give themselves the trouble to consider the original and foundation of this right. Pleased as we are with the possession, we seem afraid to look back to the means by which it was acquired, as if fearful of some defect in our title; or at best we rest satisfied with the decision of the laws in our favour, without examining the reason or authority upon which those laws have been built.”3

Yet there may be reason to be anxious concerning what we think we own. Even though there may be custom and there may be law, in the absence of authority, there is no “Right” of possession, not for an individual, and not for a state. Customs, laws, and governments are all subject to change, and the laws of possession accordingly.

David Hume, an influential eighteenth century Scottish philosopher, maintained that “Almost all the governments, which exist at present, or of which there remains any record in story, have been founded originally, either on usurpation or conquest, or both, without any pretence of a fair consent, or voluntary subjection of the people.”4 Their ownership of their land was established by the exercise of superior power. Only genuine authority can establish a legitimate “right” of ownership.

Blackstone concluded that, “there is no foundation in nature or in natural law, why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land: why the son should have a right to exclude his fellow-creatures from a determinate spot of ground, because his father had done so before him: or why the occupier of a particular field or of a jewel, when lying on his death-bed, and no longer able to maintain possession, should be entitled to tell the rest of the world which of them should enjoy it after him.”5

If there is a right to possess a territory, it did not come from Nature. Likewise, it is difficult to see how a human claim could be the source of such a right of possession. Neighboring humans often make opposite, irreconcilable claims. If someone in power has authority to adjudicate these disputes, it can only have been received from the entity Who owns the earth.

Rousseau said, “The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!”6

That was his view. So the relevant question becomes, who, or Who, has the authority to designate ownership or possession of land? Emperors and kings? Nomadic tribes and settlers? States and international organizations? If we agree on an answer, is our agreement authoritative? Whatever answer becomes policy may mean life for some and death for others. Because those in power are the ones who make the decisions, revolutions and liberation movements seek to overthrow those in power and install those who will favor their cause.

“Ownership” is important, but in Torah there are things more important. “Justice, justice shalt thou follow. These passionate words, may be taken as the keynote of the humane legislation of the Torah, and of the demand for social righteousness by Israel’s Prophets, Psalmists and Sages. ‘Let justice roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream,’ is the cry of Amos [5:24]. Justice is not the only ethical quality in God of man, nor is it the highest quality; but it is the basis for all the others. ‘Righteousness and justice are the foundations of Thy throne,’ says the Psalmist: the whole idea of the Divine rests on them.”7

Though I am obligated to treat my family and friends according to the dictates of justice, I feel its obligations more in relating to people for whom I do not have natural affection, people who are neither family nor friends. My faith is tested when I have to treat my “enemies” according to justice. My desire to be obedient to God’s law must override my feelings, especially when it relates to what I believe is rightfully mine.

In Quran we are told, “O you who believe! Be steadfast maintainers of justice, witnesses for God, though it be against yourselves, or your parents and kinsfolk, and whether it be someone rich or poor, for God is nearer unto both. So follow not your caprice, that you may act justly. If you distort or turn away, truly God is Aware of whatsoever you do.”8

Even those who desire to be obedient to God are sometimes tempted by their emotions to search for excuses to escape their obligations to others. The Biblical text is clear: “And if a foreigner sojourns with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. But the foreigner who dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.”9

In effect, God says to Israel, ‘You know from your own history and experience how people can abuse and take advantage of foreigners. You, therefore, are forbidden to do that. Treat foreigners in love, the way you would want to be treated. Maybe it is your land, but that is no excuse for lack of concern and compassion. If God has given you land, that means that “your” land is the testing ground for your love of God and love of your neighbor.’ One cannot hide behind political technicalities. The issue is nothing less than recognizing that the Lord is God: “I am the Lord.”

This commandment is not to be forgotten or neglected. That is why it is repeated several times. “You shall not wrong a foreigner nor oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.” “And you shall not oppress a foreigner, for you know the soul of a foreigner, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.” “[God] makes judgment for the orphan and widow, and loves the foreigner, giving him food and garment. Therefore love the foreigner; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.”10

Within the land itself, “You shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark, which they of earlier times have set in your inheritance, which you shall inherit in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it.”11 Markers determine the boundaries of the plot of land; to move them is equivalent to theft. Inheriting some land does not authorize a person to take other land that is next to it.

That is why each one in Israel was to affirm: “Cursed be he who removes his neighbor’s landmark. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”12 Though this is spoken specifically to the people of Israel before going into the land of Israel, the content appears to be universal, i.e. anyone who does any of these things will be cursed.

It is echoed in the hadiths: “The Prophet said, “Any person who takes a piece of land unjustly will sink down the seven earths on the Day of Resurrection.”13 We all have needs, and we all have desires, but that does not justify doing whatever we want to satisfy those needs and desires.

When God brought Israel out of Egypt and into “the Holy Land,” there was no need to be concerned about the landmarks of the tribes then living in the land. God had decreed their destruction, and all the land was to be taken from them. But that was not the situation when Israel again became a landed nation in 1948. Some people stayed on their land, and the new State of Israel recognized their ownership of that property. Other people left the land they owned because they feared for their lives.

If you find land that was owned but then abandoned, that may be your good fortune. But what about the Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent at the time of Partition who left their property because of danger to their lives? “Believing they would return ‘home,’ many families left their valuables behind before they packed up their essential belongings and began the trek to India or West or East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Many never made it.”14 Should not they be compensated by someone for what they left behind when they fled?

Maybe you also left your property behind on the other side of Partition, also hoping to be able to soon return. You have nothing with which to compensate anyone, because you escaped with only your life. Questions of justice may be difficult to resolve, but that does not mean that we are free to ignore them. Perhaps “they” should be compensated by those who caused the crisis.

Another fact to remember is that in empires and some states, the wealthy and powerful control vast areas of land which the lower classes rent from them. When the landholders sell the land, the renters are often dispossessed. The sales are legal, but they are often conducted in complete indifference to the dislocation and suffering which they cause. Before God, having possessions means having responsibilities.

 

Refugees and Displaced Persons

 

“There is a difference when the term ‘refugee’ is used in its ordinary sense or within the framework of international law. According to Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, [the] ordinary meaning of the term ‘refugee’ is broader than it is in international law. ‘Refugee’ in common understanding is someone who escaped from conditions and circumstances he or she could not bear any more. Reasons for the flight can vary from different world catastrophes to mere fear of poverty or death. Which country will become the host state also does not play a role. The main point is that [a] refugee is a person who is seeking protection and help in relation to the circumstances he ran from.”15

It is the ordinary sense of “refugee” that is most often applied to Palestinians in the land, and not that of international law. In the UN definition, “Refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin for reasons of feared persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order and, as a result, require international protection. The refugee definition can be found in the 1951 Convention and regional refugee instruments, as well as UNHCR’s Statute.”16

With this definition, Palestinians living within “Palestine” — however that is territorially defined — are not refugees, because they are not “outside their country of origin”. If, for example, the reference is to the Byzantine Syria Palaestina, then Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Gaza Strip are not “refugees”. If the reference is to the original League of Nations Mandate of Palestine, then Palestinians in Jordan and the Gaza Strip are not “refugees”. With current categories, these would all be considered to be internally displaced persons. The situation is complicated by the fact that there has never been a country of “Palestine,” so it is difficult to call that anyone’s “country of origin”.

The UN, however, has other categories which it uses to describe the situations in which millions of people find themselves. “A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.

“…An internally displaced person, or IDP, is someone who has been forced to flee their home but never cross an international border.

“…A stateless person is someone who is not a citizen of any country. Citizenship is the legal bond between a government and an individual, and allows for certain political, economic, social and other rights of the individual, as well as the responsibilities of both government and citizen. A person can become stateless due to a variety of reasons, including sovereign, legal, technical or administrative decisions or oversights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights underlines that “Everyone has the right to a nationality.”17

Those are the general definitions for everyone in the world except Palestinians. There is a different definition applied to Palestinians because the UN has one agency for all refugees from every country in the world except those of Palestine: the High Commission[er] for Refugees (UNHCR). Its goal is clearly stated. “We strive to ensure that everyone has the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to eventually return home, integrate or resettle.”18

There is another separate agency set up only for the refugees of Palestine, the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). That agency has different goals for them, goals which do not include helping them “to seek asylum” or to “find safe refuge in another State… integrate or resettle.” Its goals are a little more nebulous and less measurable.

“We provide assistance and protection for some 5.6 million registered Palestine refugees to help them achieve their full potential in human development.”19 “We are committed to fostering the human development of Palestine refugees by helping them to: Acquire knowledge and skills; Lead long and healthy lives; Achieve decent standards of living; Enjoy human rights to the fullest possible extent.”20

This is a paternalistic purpose, with no provision or regard for helping refugees to no longer be refugees. The reality is that for 70 years UNRWA has operated refugee camps where, in its own words, it has not accomplished any of its lofty sounding goals: “Socioeconomic conditions in the camps are generally poor, with high population density, cramped living conditions and inadequate basic infrastructure such as roads and sewers. …”21

The current education that is given is politically determined, and therefore directed towards the current political goals. Lives are not long or healthy. The standard of living is abhorrent rather than decent, and intentionally so. There are no human rights which the rulers recognize.

“Palestine refugees are defined as ‘persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.’ …The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. Nearly one-third of the registered Palestine refugees, more than 1.5 million individuals, live in 58 recognized Palestine refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem…. The remaining two thirds of registered Palestine refugees live in and around the cities and towns of the host countries, and in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, often in the environs of official camps.”22

The designation “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948” means that many people who had recently come to Palestine are counted, even though it was not their home country; it was not their “country of origin”. It would be normal to include the Muslims from the Balkans and North Africa who were forceably resettled in “Syria” during the last century of the Ottoman Empire, for that happened long before June 1946.

This raises some vital but unaddressed questions. After how many years of living in a land does a person have “a right” to live there? After how many years of living in a land does it become a person’s homeland? Two years? a hundred years? A thousand years? Whatever the answers are, equity requires that they apply equally to Muslims, Jews, Christians, and every other people group.

For 3500 years, there has always been a Jewish presence in the land. Archaeology, historical records, and the literature of multiple countries bear witness to that. For slightly more than the last three hundred years, contemporary census estimates are available for population groups in the Holy Land.

In 1696 the Jewish population in Jerusalem was more than that of any other group. “Some 5000 people lived in Jerusalem, most of them Jews. Interestingly, Muslims are mentioned only as nomadic Bedouins, who served as seasonal agriculture and construction workers. The population of Gaza was equally divided between Jews and Christians.”23

In that study, the Dutch scholar Adrian Reland found 2500 inhabited places in the land and researched their history and the linguistic origins of their names. The linguistic evidence showed that “Not one place in Eretz Israel has a name that originates in Arabic. Place names are Hebrew, Greek or Roman (Latin), that were given meaningless Arabic derivations. Akko, Haifa, Yafo, Nablus, Gaza or Jenin have no meaning in Arabic, and city names like Ramallah, Al-Khalil and Al-Quds lack historic or philological Arab roots. In 1696, the year of the survey, Ramallah was called Bt’ala (=Beit-El), Hebron was Chevron….”24 “Gaza,” for example, is simply the old Hebrew pronunciation of the city mentioned in Genesis 10:19, Deuteronomy 2:23, etc.

That doesn’t mean that Arabs have no roots in the land nor any right to live there. The land, including Jerusalem, was under Ottoman occupation for centuries. “In 1840 the city’s population was estimated to consist of 4,650 Muslims, 3,350 Christians, and 5,000 Jews.”25 In 1881, “The population of Jerusalem may be estimated at about twenty-one thousand, of which seven thousands are Moslems, nine thousand Jews, and five thousand Christians.”26

“The Ottoman census figures of 1905 reveal a total of 32,400 Ottoman nationals in Jerusalem: 13,400 Jews, 11,000 Muslims, and 8,000 Christians. However, these numbers do not reflect those with foreign nationality living in the city which more than likely would raise the numbers of Jews and Christians. Jewish sources for this year contend a much higher number, including one estimating 50,000 Jews in a total population of 75,000. The Ottoman sources for 1914 for the entire Qada’ of Jerusalem, give the number of Jewish citizens to be 18,190.”27

As the Jewish population in the city and in the land increased, so did the Arab population. That is because, according to all the sources, the economy improved and more people could find work there. Winston Churchill said in 1939, “…So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”28

“While Palestinian Arabs constituted a majority of the population in the Jerusalem District, Jews predominated within the municipal boundaries (for instance in 1947 there were 99.4 thousand Jews to 65.1 thousand Arabs).”29

 

What is the Refugee Problem?

 

The situation of the 70 million other refugees with whom UNHCR works this year is difficult, but there is hope. UNHCR has already helped to resettle more than (an estimated) 50 million refugees who have rebuilt their lives in different countries. The transition is not easy, but their lives have improved; as they have become more independent.

In his 1959 report, John Davis, the Director of UNRWA, reported: “It is no exaggeration to state that every aspect of life and human endeavour in the Near East is conditioned and complicated by the Palestine refugee problem. Its psychological, political and social repercussions are of no less significance than its economic and humanitarian aspects. Any solution of the Palestine refugee problem must take these aspects into account.”30

The situation of Palestinian refugees is disheartening. In approximately seventy years of operation, UNRWA has not helped to resettle anyone. Not one person. That is not one of its goals. It was not set up to do that.

It is a caretaker agency for those who live in camps “with high population density, cramped living conditions and inadequate basic infrastructure such as roads and sewers.” One generation follows another in these camps, and their lives do not improve, but they inherit the label of “refugee” because their father or grandfather or great-grandfather was a refugee or an internally displaced person. UNRWA offers them no hope. Why is that?

In 1949, U.N. Resolution 302 (IV) created the agency, stipulating that UNRWA is to “carry out in collaboration with local governments the direct relief and works programs… [and] consult with the interested Near Eastern Governments concerning measures to be taken by them preparatory to the time when international assistance for relief and works projects is no longer available.”31

Regardless of the category, there are people whose lives have been completely disrupted. There are political agendas which are irreconcilable. But the Holy Scriptures mandate humanitarian concern apart from those agendas. Even as God is compassionate, so should His followers be.

The United Nations Relief and Works Administration Report of 1954 conceded that “economic factors had proved to be not as important as the desire of the refugees for their old homes and the fear of the Arab states that settlement of the refugees would stabilize Israel’s position in the Middle East as a permanent neighbor.”32

In all other circumstances, with all other refugees, the problem is to (a) find ways to house, feed, and meet the basic needs of a group of dispossessed people; and (b) find new countries where this group of people can rebuild their lives. There is a humanitarian concern for the well-being of the people. There is a desire to help them transition to a new life in a new location. For those who focus on the Palestinian people, that is the refugee problem that must be addressed.

At the same time, other efforts are often made to deal with the circumstances which turn people into refugees. Efforts are made to bring about political or economic change in the country or region where they used to live, so that more people are not turned into refugees, and so that those who are might some day be able to return to their country of origin. “The ultimate aim of protection is to help a refugee to cease to be a refugee, whether through voluntary repatriation or through naturalization.”33

What happened seventy years ago has become several different histories today, but actual events are not determined by opinions three generations later. The historian cannot rely on the imposition of his, her, or someone else’s ideology concerning the actual events. Carl Degler suggested that the historian “is guided less by ‘covering laws’ that are presumed to be true in all times and places than by ‘participant-sources’ — that is, contemporary evidence.”34

The Palestinian refugee problem is unique in that the dominant approach is based on political reconstruction and not on humanitarian motives. Looking at the contemporary evidence of participant sources makes this clear. It also clarifies why the problem has not yet been solved.

As the UNRWA Report indicated, the Arab states have opposed solving the humanitarian needs of the refugees for fear that “settlement of the refugees would stabilize Israel’s position in the Middle East as a permanent neighbor.” For seventy years, they have not wanted stability; they have not wanted any solution other than the destruction of Israel. That is a simple, documented fact.

Elfan Rees, the World Council of Churches’ Adviser on Refugees, said in 1957: “I hold the view that, political issues aside, the Arab refugee problem is by far the easiest post-war refugee problem to solve by integration. By faith, language, race and by social organisation they are indistinguishable from their fellows of their host countries. There is room for them in Syria and Iraq [and even more room, and need, now, in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf oil states]. There is a developing demand for the kind of manpower they represent. More unusually still, there is the money to make this integration possible. The United Nations General Assembly, five years ago, donated a sum of $200,000,000 to provide, and here I quote the phrase ‘homes and jobs’ for the Arab refugees. That money remains unspent, not because these tragic people are strangers in a strange land — because they are not, not because there is no room for them to be established — because there is, but simply for political reasons.”35

“In 1952 Lt.-Gen. Sir Alexander Galloway, a noted British soldier-diplomat who was then UNRWA director in Jordan, made what was to become a famous statement to a group of visiting American church leaders: ‘It is perfectly clear than the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”36

The Arab nations have helped one another in dealing with refugee groups from Algeria, Morocco, Syria (about 13 million people since 2011), and others. “Syria is the biggest humanitarian and refugee crisis of our time, a continuing cause of suffering for millions which should be garnering a groundswell of support around the world.”37

By comparison, though some Arab and Muslim countries are among those who contribute to UNRWA toward the costs of the camps, they, with the exception of Jordan, do not do anything to reintegrate any of the Palestinian refugees. For example, “Palestinians cannot own businesses in Lebanon and are banned from most decent-paying professions, including medicine and law. An estimated two-thirds live in poverty. The government will not give citizenship rights to Palestinian refugees, for fear it could make them stay forever.”38

”Under Lebanese law, Palestinian refugees are banned from working in over 30 professions, including medicine and law. Palestinians are currently banned from owning property, attending public schools, utilizing public health services, and making an enforceable will. They pay taxes to the National Social Security Fund, yet do not receive any of the benefits.”39 In contrast, the UNHCR includes under the right of refugees in their countries of residence the Right to work, Social Security, and Naturalization.40 And the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam says that “The States shall ensure the right of the individual to a decent living that may enable him to meet his requirements and those of his dependents, including food, clothing, housing, education, medical care and all other basic needs.”41

In his 1962 report, John Davis, the Director of UNRWA, concluded: “The frustrated attempts of UNRWA during its initial years in sponsoring work projects to settle refugees and the virtually fruitless outcome of past broader efforts, under other auspices, to negotiate a settlement of the Palestine problem, strongly suggest that these undertakings have failed because they have been unacceptable to the people (refugee and non-refugee) indigenous to the region and to the Governments which represent them…. From this experience one should not conclude that economic development is not wanted by the people of the region. On the contrary, it is wanted and at an accelerated rate but not in the context of refugee resettlement.”42

Anything that would lead to resettlement was opposed. Resettlement is, however, the normal goal in assisting refugees. But resettlement of the Palestinian refugees would weaken the force of the political agenda.

In 1960, King Hussein of Jordan said, “Since 1948, Arab leaders… have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal.”43 The Arab countries have not been concerned with the well-being of the Palestinians, but rather with using them as leverage for a political agenda. That is the justification for using the UNRWA to keep them in miserable conditions. That has been the goal of the Arab leaders for the Palestinians: miserable conditions and the teaching that the destruction of Israel is the purpose of their lives.

“As early as October 11, 1949 the prominent Egyptian politician Muhammad Salah al-Din, soon to become his country’s foreign minister, wrote in the influential Egyptian daily al-Misri that “in demanding the restoration of the refugees to Palestine, the Arabs intend that they shall return as the masters of the homeland and not as slaves. More specifically, they intend to annihilate the state of Israel.”44

For those with this view, the expressed primary goal is “to annihilate the state of Israel”. Peace with Israel is not a goal at all. Nor is improving the condition of the Palestinians.

Why? Islam does not require this. Muhammad made a covenant of peace and mutual responsibility with the Jews of Medina. He made a constitution that required it.

I understand being so committed to a goal or an ideal that one is willing to endure great hardship and suffering in pursuit of it. But it is something quite different to be so committed to a goal or an ideal that one is willing to make others endure great hardship and suffering. It is something quite different to trivialize the lives of others.

“Galloway’s solution was straightforward: ‘Give each of the Arab nations where the refugees are to be found an agreed-upon sum of money for their care and resettlement and then let them handle it. If… the United Nations had done this immediately after the conflict – explaining to the Arab states, We are sorry it happened, but here is a sum of money for you to take care of the refugee’ – the problem might have been solved long ago.’”45

Because of the nature of humanity and because of natural disasters, there are always new refugee situations. UNHCR is one organization that was set up to help alleviate the pain, deprivation, and dislocation. Everyone else in the world can be helped by UNHCR if they become refugees. Palestinians cannot.

“UNGA Resolution 428, which established UNHCR, states that: The competence of the High Commissioner.. shall not extend to a person […] who continues to receive from other organs or agencies of the UN protection or assistance. In practice, this exception only applies to Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA. No other group of refugees receives assistance from any other UN agency or organ. In theory, Palestinian refugees who find themselves outside UNRWA’s geographical range should be exempt from the exception, and eligible for UNHCR services. In practice, they often fall through the gaps, as has been highlighted by the recent plight of Palestinian refugees fleeing Syria for Turkey, Egypt or Iraq.”46

“To summarize it all, the wording of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention means the following: If any Palestinian lives within the UNRWA area and, therefore, receives, or is eligible to receive, UNRWA assistance, then this person is not covered by the Refugee Convention in order to avoid the overlap between the competences of UNRWA and UNHCR.”47 “Those Palestinian refugees, who are on the territory of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and, consequently, fall within the UNRWA mandate, are not beneficiaries of the 1951 Refugee Convention.”48

This is politically mandated discrimination, coupled with the refusal of neighboring countries to help. There is always the hope that refugees will be able to return to their country of origin, but there is no internationally recognized right of return. There never has been. No one has ever claimed that all refugees retain a right to return to their country of origin.

Elfan Rees noted that “No large-scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem can be so solved. Nothing can bring it about except wars which in our time would leave nothing to go back to. War has never solved a refugee problem and it is not in the books that a modern war would.”49

In the years following the 1948 war, there were many proposals made in the UN to alleviate or solve the refugee problem. Among them were proposals to resettle the refugees in neighboring Arab countries such as Jordan, Syria, and the Sinai controlled by Egypt. For example, “This trend was also apparent at the ninth session [1954-55], when a number of delegations emphasized the essential objectives of UNRWA. The representative of the United States stated that objective as being rehabilitation, that is, enabling the refugees to become self-supporting members of society. He suggested that efforts be continued to find new homes and work for refugees choosing to settle in Arab countries, without prejudice to their rights to repatriation and compensation. He insisted, for instance, that the Sinai and the Jordan-Yarmuk projects begin without delay. The representatives of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom concurred.”50

No progress was made then, as is also the case now, because the different sides hold firmly to their political positions, without yielding to their obligations before God. From a scriptural point of view, the issue must be addressed and the condition of the Palestinians improved. That means that some basic facts have to be dealt with.

“On the eve of May 14 [1948], the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command.”51 TransJordan soon joined in the attack.

On September 15, 1948, Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, declared: “I do not want to impugn anyone but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem.”52

“The PA’s current prime minister, Mahmud Abbas (“Abu Mazen”) wrote in the PLO journal “Palestine a-Thaura” (March 1976): ‘The Arab armies, who invaded the country in ‘48, forced the Palestinians to emigrate and leave their homeland and forced a political and ideological siege on them.’”53 “According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, however, ‘the majority ‘ of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, and ’68%’ left without seeing an Israeli soldier.”54

“Khaled Al-Azm, who was Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war, deplored the Arab tactics and the subsequent exploitation of the refugees, in his 1972 memoirs: ‘Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them leave…. We brought disaster upon …Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave…. We have rendered them dispossessed…. We have accustomed them to begging…. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level…. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon… men, women and children — all this in the service of political purposes….’”55 It is a mistake to equate political purposes with God’s purposes.

“The London Economist (October 2, 1948) reported an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa’s Arabs: “There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit… And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”56

“The Jewish Haifa Workers’ Council issued an appeal to the Arab residents of Haifa: ‘For years we have lived together in our city, Haifa…. Do not fear: Do not destroy your homes with your own hands… do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens…. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace for you and your families.’”57

People today who are most committed to their ideology may present revisionist views, but this is what we find in the contemporary participant sources. Those who left because they feared the invading Arab armies must be considered to be refugees as much as those who left because they feared the Israeli military. People often have a mixture of reasons for why they do what they do.

These people should be compensated for what they left behind. But by whom? Perhaps they should be compensated by those who started the war.

The UN Palestine Commission reported in April 1948 that, “Arab opposition to the plan of the Assembly of 29 November 1947 has taken the form of organized efforts by strong Arab elements, both inside and outside Palestine, to prevent its implementation and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including repeated armed incursions into Palestine territory. The Commission has had to report to the Security Council that powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of’ the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.”58

There were Palestinian refugees in 1948 because the leaders of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt. Saudi Arabia and TransJordan told them to leave until their armies annihilated Israel. They did not succeed. There were more Palestinian refugees in 1967, because these Arab states pursued their goal once again to annihilate Israel.

And in all the years since 1948, those Arab states have pursued the same goal without successs. They have approved the dehumanization of the refugees to increase support for the annihilation of Israel. But none of this is the behavior that the Quran says is required or pleasing to Allah.

In the process, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq have now been fragmented and destroyed, not by Israel, but from within. That leaves Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan still intact. Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel, but it is not a robust peace. Common goals and cooperation are minimal.

If the refugee problem were defined in humanitarian terms apart from any political agenda, it would be easy to solve. As Abba Eban, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, pointed out to the UN Special Political Committee on November 17,1958:

“Apart from the question of its origin, the perpetuation of this refugee problem is an unnatural event, running against the whole course of experience and precedent. Since the end of the Second World War, problems affecting forty million refugees have confronted governments in various parts of the world. In no case, except that of the Arab refugees, amounting to less than two percent of the whole, has the international community shown constant responsibility and provided lavish aid. In every other case a solution has been found by the integration of refugees into their host countries. Nine million Koreans; 900,000 refugees from the conflict in Viet Nam, 8.5 million Hindus and Sikhs leaving Pakistan for India; 6.5 million Moslems fleeing India to Pakistan; 700,000 Chinese refugees in Hong Kong; 13 million Germans from the Sudetenland, Poland and other East European States reaching West and East Germany; thousands of Turkish refugees from Bulgaria; 440,000 Finns separated from their homeland by a change of frontier; 450,000 refugees from Arab lands arrived destitute in Israel; and an equal number converging on Israel from the remnants of the Jewish holocaust in Europe these form the tragic procession of the world’s refugee population in the past two decades. In every case but that of the Arab refugees now in Arab lands the countries in which the refugees sought shelter have facilitated their integration. In this case alone has integration been obstructed.”59

In Europe and in Asia, in Africa and in South America, difficult refugee problems have been solved. In none of these cases were the tragedies undone nor was everyone made happy, but the survivors and their descendants were able to move on with their lives. None of the more than 600 refugee camps from Partition are still in operation, nor any of the 825 refugee camps from the Bangladesh War of Independence. That has been the case for decades.

For the Palestinians, for that is what we now call them, the dynamics of the problem can be summed up in a few basic questions. What is their country of origin? There was no country of “Palestine” when they became refugees, only a League of Nations Mandate to establish a national homeland for the Jews. What is their current country of residence? Most live in what is now called “Palestine”.

Why is the most basic question concerning all refugees not asked in this case: Into what countries can they be resettled? This kind of discrimination and exploitation for political purposes is not visited upon any other refugee population groups.

Sometimes hindsight indicates that a mix of motivations might have been prioritized differently. Humans can be slow to change; they may be committed to believe what they believe despite the evidence. That does not, however, negate the possibility that humans can change and can reassess a situation. That also applies to the Arab countries which attacked Israel and played a major role in creating the refugee problem.

There is more about Israel in the Arabic Holy Scriptures than seeking to annihilate it. There are commands to seek a treaty of peace and friendship. Someone who believes in Allah should be willing to turn away from what leads to death and consider turning to what leads to life.

We are all influenced in some ways and measure by those around us. “Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman said, ‘The hypocrites of today are worse than those of the lifetime of the Prophet, because in those days they used to do evil deeds secretly but today they do such deeds openly.’”60 That is all the more reason for each of us to freely let God search our hearts and show us what is there, especially if they contain what they should not. As David prayed in the Psalms: “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Test me, and know my thoughts! And see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”61

As the Quran says, “And were God to take mankind to task for their wrongdoing, He would not leave a single creature upon [the earth]. But He grants them reprieve till a term appointed. And when their term comes, they shall not delay it a single hour, nor shall they advance it.”62 A true believer must live and act accordingly.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

  1. Lamentations 1:12
  2. Leviticus 25:23
  3. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, [1753], (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1893) Bk. 2, Ch. 1, p. 304
  4. David Hume, “On Civil Liberty,” Part II, Essay XII.9, OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT
  5. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Bk. 2, Ch. 1, p.304
  6. Rousseau, A Discourse Upon The Origin And The Foundation Of The Inequality Among Mankind, Harvard Classics Volume 34, 1910. Editor Charles W. Eliot, Project Gutenberg epub 82.9
  7. Hertz, Pentateuch & Haftorahs, comment on Deuteronomy 16:20, p. 821. The word translated as “follow” is more literally given as “pursue”.
  8. Quran, Women/al-Nisa 4:135
  9. Leviticus 19:33-34
  10. Exodus 22:20 in Hebrew, 22:21 in many English translations, Exodus 23:9, Deuteronomy 10:18-19
  11. Deuteronomy 19:14
  12. Deuteronomy 27:17
  13. “Narrated Salim’s father” Sahih al-Bukhari 3196: Book 59, Hadith 7USC-MSA web reference: Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 418

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/7

  1. “1947 Partition of India & Pakistan,” C. Ryan Perkins https://exhibits.stanford.edu/1947-partition/about/1947-partition-of-india-pakistan
  2. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill,The Refugee in International Law, ,2nd edition, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,, 1996) p.3, cited in Nigar,Palestinian Refugees in International Law, pp.19-20
  3. https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/definitions
  4. https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
  5. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/who-we-help.html
  6. https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are
  7. https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do
  8. https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees Accessed May 7, 2020.
  9. https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees Accessed May 7, 2020.
  10. Hadriani Relandi, Palaestina, ex monumentis veteribus illustrata, published by Trajecti Batavorum: Ex Libraria G. Brodelet, 1714.https://www.klinebooks.com/pages/books/31784/hadriani-relandi-adriaan-reland/palaestina-ex-monumentis-veteribus-illustrata-complete-in-two-volumesThe Latin text can be freely downloaded at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t44q91p43&view=1up&seq=7
  11. https://www.klinebooks.com/pages/books/31784/hadriani-relandi-adriaan-reland/palaestina-ex-monumentis-veteribus-illustrata-complete-in-two-volumes
  12. “Jerusalem,” Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, pp.299-300
  13. Picturesque Palestine, Sinai, and Egypt, edited by Colonel Wilson, Vol.1, (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1881) p. 118
  14. “Ottoman Jerusalem,” Rochelle Davis, Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and their Fate in the War, ed. Salim Tamari, 2d edition (Bethlehem: Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, 2002) p.17
  15. Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, 5 vols., The Prophet of Truth: 1922-1939, (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1977) vol.5, p. 1072. Quoted in Peters, p.230
  16. Salim Tamari, “The Phantom City,” Jerusalem 1948, p.4, citing Walid Mustafa, AlQuds, Imran wa Sukkan, Jerusalem: JMCC, 1997
  17. “Introduction, Pt. 11,” p.1 https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7F43E1C5AFF52925052565A10074D7EB
  18. https://www.unrwa.org/content/general-assembly-resolution-302 7. (a) (b)
  19. The Refugee Problem in the Middle East, edited by A.G. Mezerik, International Review Service, Page 8
  20. “Report of the UNHCR Supplement No. 11 (A/4104/Rev.1), Chapter I International Protection. 21,Jan. 1, 1960. “Requests for repatriation received from individual refugees are being referred to the appropriate authorities of their countries of origin.” I.28

https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/excom/unhcrannual/3ae68c930/report-united-nations-high-commissioner-refugees.html

  1. Himmelfarb, The New History and the Old, 1987, P. 30
  2. Commission of the Churches of International Affairs and World Council of Churches’ Adviser on Refugees, Report of Dr. Elfan Rees (1957). Cited in “The Palestinian Refugees’ “Right to Return” and the Peace Process,” Justus R. Weiner, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 20, Issue 1, https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=iclr
  3. “UNRWA and the Code of Silence,” Alexander H. Joffe, Asaf Romirowsky, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 7, 2010 https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/UNRWA-and-the-code-of-silence
  4. Filippo Grandi, UNHCR High Commissioner, “Syria emergency,” https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/syria-emergency.html Accessed May 12, 2020
  5. “Palestinians in Lebanon: It’s like living in a prison.” Al jazeera, Lisa Khoury, 16 Dec 2017https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/palestinians-lebanon-living-prison-171215114602518.html
  6. “At UNRWA, An Open-and-Shut Case,” Hugh Fitzgerald, 11/15 2019

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/11/at-unrwa-an-open-and-shut-case

  1. 1960 Report, UNHCR Annex I INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION C. “Rights of Refugees in their countries of residence”
  2. Cairo Declaration, Article Article 17 (c)
  3. “Introduction, Pt. 12,” p.1, 30 June 1962. https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DC35CB50DFC79C380525651D00650F8F
  4. The Refugee Issue,” Shraga Simmons, Dec 31, 1969

https://www.aish.com/jw/me/48883137.html

  1. “The war against the Jews,” Efraim Karsh, Israel Affairs, July 2012, pp. 319-343, fn.7. quoted in Israel’s Foreign Ministry, Research Department, “Refugee Repatriation—A Danger to Israel’s security,” Sept. 4, 1951, Israel’s State Archives, ISA, FM 2564/1.
  2. “UNRWA and the Code of Silence,” Joffe and Romirowsky, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 7, 2010 https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/UNRWA-and-the-code-of-silence
  3. Irfan, Anne (2017) UNRWA and the Palestinian precedent: lessons from the international response to the Palestinian refugee crisis,” Global Politics Review, 3 (1). pp. 17-18. ISSN 2464-9929 Citing UN General Assembly, Resolution 428(V), Paragraph 7(c), Chapter 2.
  4. Nigar, p.79
  5. Nigar, p.78 citing “Closing protection gap”, Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees in States Signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, August 2005,p.89
  6. “Century of the Homeless Man”, Elfan Rees, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 1957. Quoted in “Statement by Ambassador Eban — 17 November 1958”
  7. “Palestine refugees; Repatriation and Resettlement – UNCCP – Working paper/Revised,” Point 153.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-210679/

  1. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war
  2. Quoted in “Statement to the Special Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly by Ambassador Eban, November 17, 1958”

https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/General/11-statement-to-the-special-political-committee-of-unga-by-ambassador-eban-17-november-1958

  1. Cited in “The Refugee Issue,” Simmons, Dec 31, 1969
  2. Cited in Peters, From Time Immemorial, p. 13
  3. Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic], 3 vols. (Al-Dar al Muttahida lil-Nashr, 1972.Quoted in Peters, From Time Immemorial, p. 16
  4. Cited in “The Refugee Issue,” Shraga Simmons, Dec 31, 1969
  5. April 28,1948. Cited in Peters, From Time Immemorial, p.13
  6. Quoted in “Statement to the Special Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly by Ambassador Eban — 17 November 1958”
  7. https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/General/11-statement-to-the-special-political-committee-of-unga-by-ambassador-eban-17-november-1958
  8. “Narrated By Abi Waih,” Sahih Bukhari Volume 009, Book 088, Hadith Number 229 Book 88. Afflictions and the End of the War, http://hadithcollection.com
  9. Psalm 139:23-24
  10. Quran, The Bee/ al-Nahl 16:61

 

Menu