Reflections on Refugees, New Jersey
& Broken Cameras
by Joel B.
Refugees
Much has been written and said about the Palestinian
refugee problem, and much blame has been cast at Israel for not allowing those
“refugees” to “return” to their old homes in Israel. However, in the context of
Palestinian Arabs,“refugee” is a propaganda term with no basis in law or fact.
According to international law, there are no Palestinian refugees.
"Refugee" is defined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees, adopted in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations.
"A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling
to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group, or political opinion." (Introductory note by the Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.)
With regard to Palestinian Arabs who, in 1948-1949, left
their homes in areas that became the State of Israel, there are two crucial
elements in the definition of refugee: (a) "country of origin", with emphasis on
the word "country", and (b) "fear of being persecuted".
Let's examine these elements, starting with the reason for
the inability of the so-called refugees to return to their former homes.
The reason they can't return to their homes in what is now
Israel is not that they fear persecution. Supposedly, they want to return to
their former homes. At least, that's what the Palestine Liberation Organization,
the Palestinian Authority, and much of the international community are claiming.
Presumably, those who insist on a "right of return" are not calling for these
"refugees" to go back to places where they would be persecuted.
The reason these people can't return to their former homes
is not because they fear persecution — it's because they don't have Israeli
citizenship.
Which brings us to "country of origin". The country of
origin of the so-called refugees is Palestine. Although not an independent
state, Palestine, through the Palestinian Authority, consists of territory over
which its Arab residents possess a degree of self-government and autonomy.
Clearly, there is a country of Palestine. Consequently, the so-called refugees
have a country of origin to which they can return, namely, the areas under the
jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. Accordingly, these so-called
"refugees" are not actually refugees as the term is defined by the Geneva
Convention and is generally understood under international law.
So, why, 64 years later, are Palestinian Arabs still in
"refugee" camps? And, how is it that Palestinian Arabs living in the territory
of the Palestinian Authority, i.e., living in their own country, can be
considered refugees?
Moreover, "refugee" is not an inheritable status. Even if,
for the sake of argument, you consider Arabs who fled from Jaffa or Haifa in
1949 to be refugees, their children and grandchildren are not refugees under any
definition in the Geneva Convention.
If you argue that these so-called refugees should have the
right to "return" to homes that are now in Israel, you're contradicting the
concept of Palestinian nationality. If you consider an Arab who once lived in
Jaffa, or Haifa, or Lod (or whose grandparents once lived there) to be a refugee
even though he's living in the Palestinian West Bank or Gaza, you're saying that
he's not really a Palestinian; rather, he's a Jaffa-ite, or a Haifa-ite, or a
Lod-ite.
Consider a parallel situation. My grandparents fled Russia.
Let's assume that I wanted to move into my grandfather's old home in Russia. The
Russian authorities could rightfully insist, "You can't move here --you're not a
Russian citizen." Would I be considered a refugee? Of course not! Having been
born in the United States, I have American nationality and citizenship. Although
my grandparents were born in Russia, Russia isn't my "country of origin", the
United States is.
Consider another parallel. In 1947, British India was
partitioned into a Muslim state (Pakistan) and a Hindu state (the Union of
India). Millions of Hindus left their ancestral homes in Pakistan to become
Indian citizens, and millions of Muslims left their ancestral homes in India to
become Pakistani citizens. Although displaced, they did not become refugees,
even if their displacement was the result of duress or violence. Certainly their
descendants are not considered refugees.
Another interesting parallel:
millions of Muslims remained in India and accepted Indian citizenship, just as
thousands of Arabs remain in Israel and accepted Israeli citizenship. Muslim
Pakistan was not so hospitable to keeping a Hindu minority, just as the Muslim
Arab states were not amenable to keeping their Jewish minorities.
Then there are the thousands of Americans who were
displaced from New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. They can't go back to their
ancestral homes in New Orleans — they have to make their homes elsewhere in the
United States.
Also, thousand of American families have lost their homes
to foreclosure and have had to settle elsewhere. And what about those who have
been evicted because their homes have been seized by the authorities as a result
of eminent domain
The inability to go back to your old house or to your old
hometown does not make you a refugee, as long as you can dwell someplace else
within your country.
Five Broken
Cameras
I haven't seen the new film documentary "Five Broken
Cameras" yet, but I've read enough about it to get the gist — that Israeli
soldiers and Jewish residents the Bil'in area behaved atrociously toward their
Arab neighbors.
No one can condone the destruction of Mr. Burnat's cameras
or Bil'in's loss of some agricultural land. But before we use this documentary
as justification to indict Israel, Israelis, and Jewish communities in Judea and
Samaria, we should consider that implacable conflicts over land exist
everywhere. Here in our own State of New Jersey, entire communities have been
wantonly destroyed in the name of public policy.
Example: In 2002, a modest neighborhood in Long Branch was
uprooted to make way for "Pier Village", an upscale development of trendy retail
shops, fancy restaurants and luxury apartments. Under the guise of "eminent
domain", the properties of these long-time homeowners were turned over to a
private developer. The hapless homeowners were forced to accept modest
compensation, and then were left to find other homes in one of the highest cost
areas in New Jersey.
How could such an injustice take place in the United
States, where eminent domain had always been understood to refer to the taking
of private property for a public purpose, and not for appropriation by another
private owner?
In 2000, the city of New London, Connecticut decided that
private developers could make better use of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood than
those who had been living there for years. One resident had been born there in a
house that had been in her family for over 100 years. Nevertheless, the United
States Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that the "Takings Clause" of
Article V of the Constitution did not protect the private property rights of the
Fort Trumbull residents. Their homes were seized and turned over to private
developers. (In the parlance of the Middle East, I guess the displaced residents
of New London, Conn., and Long Branch, N.J., should be considered refugees, as
should their children and grandchildren.)
Now let's compare the situation in Bil'in. The residents of
Bil'in were able to go to the Israeli Supreme Court and argue that the route of
the security barrier constitution an illegal appropriation of their land. The
Israeli Supreme Court accepted their argument, and the barrier was
re-routed.
It's too bad that the residents of Fort Trumbull and of the
Long Branch pier area did not have access to the Israeli Supreme
Court.
And, it's too bad that these New Jersey and Connecticut
villagers did not attract the attention of a filmmaker as skilled as Guy Davidi
to publicize their plight to the world. Perhaps international opprobrium would
have been focused on New Jersey and Connecticut and their insupportable policies
of "eminent domain", and those homes on the front line of corporate expansionism
would have been saved.
One has to be careful in making judgments about places
where we don't live.
I am imagining that there is an award-winning
documentary out of Brazil consisting of home movies by a peaceful Amerindian
villager in which he recorded heartwarming moments with this family and nasty
confrontations with white loggers, ranchers and Brazilian soldiers, who smashed
five of his cameras. Why do we react to "5 Broken Cameras" differently than we
would respond to "Cinco Câmeras Quebradas"?
Maybe it's this:
Notwithstanding the atrocious treatment of Brazil's minorities, I
haven't heard of any calls for Brazil to be wiped off the map or for white
Brazilians to go back to Portugal and turn the entire country over to
Amerindians, who, after all, were there first. There's no international boycott
or divestment movement directed at Brazil. Artists don't cancel concert tours to
Brazil because of oppression of indigenous peoples; Brazilian academics aren't
barred from international conferences or banned from European universities.
Some Brazilians can do unjust things to other Brazilians without the
legitimacy of entire nation being challenged.
Then, there's Israel
...
Joel B. provided this original content material; it is used with
permission.
[Bruce's MidEast Soundbites]
*
