What refugees need is recognition - not return
Dalia Shehori
Haaretz, November 19, 2003
"There is no reason to expect that when Israel will
have to set the number of Palestinian refugees
that return, and determine the conditions of their
return, and when it is faced with managing the
administrative side of the return, it will in fact
be flooded with refugees. I am unaware of any
precedent for a return of refugees," says
Professor Elazar Barkan, a lecturer in history and
cultural studies at Claremont University in
California.
Earlier this month, Barkan delivered a lecture on the
return of refugees all over the world at "Deadly
Neighbors," a conference held at the University of Haifa under the auspices of the Bucerius Institute for
Research of Contemporary German History and Society, and the Hamburg Institute for Social Research.
In his lecture, Barkan did not specifically refer to the problem of the Palestinian refugees, but in an interview, he paid special and specific attention to them. He has found that in the past 50 years, there are no precedents for the return of refugees to a place in which they constitute a minority. He therefore wonders why the right of return is so important to Palestinians and why Israel is so frightened of this idea?
"If the Palestinians return to the Palestinian state, a place in which they are the majority, there is certainly no problem. There are precedents for this. But there are no precedents for return beyond the line of ethnic
separation," says Barkan.
"I am not aware of any refugees that settled in a diaspora and are trying to return in massive numbers to the country from which they were banished - not the Afghanis, not the Iraqis in the recent past, and not even the Bosnians, who made every attempt not to return to Bosnia after receiving asylum in Europe," he said. "Even if they are offered monetary motivation,
the refugees do not want to go back. Usually, we are speaking of returning to a country that is poorer and is suffering more, meaning that no one is running to go back to it."
Barkan, a 49-year-old Israeli, studied at Tel Aviv University and then pursued a Ph.D. in the U.S. He has never been back to Israel
Refugee-related issues also touch on his main
academic interest - the study of the influence of history on contemporary politics. He says that the essential Palestinian experience has over the years become the quintessence of refugeeism. "All of the Palestinians feel that in one way or another they are refugees, that
the Palestinian national identity is a refugee identity," he explained. Therefore, he argued, discussion of the problem of the Palestinian refugees takes place first and foremost on the cultural and intellectual plane, and "Israel should connect to it, not repudiate it."
He sees the Geneva Accords, in which Israel would recognize the Palestinian suffering, as a solution to the problem. "This is exactly what - in the bottom line - will bring about a solution of the conflict: the recognition of suffering, the recognition that someone is acknowledging your suffering. Then the size of
the compensation has to be examined, what the
damage really was," he says. Recognition of
Palestinian suffering, he says, should be a significant part of a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. And although there is no requirement that the settlement has to include the solution proposed in the Geneva Accords, their importance lies in that they provide a framework for discussion.
Regarding actualization of the right of return, he said: "There are enough studies among the Palestinians that show that a sizable percentage of Palestinians do not conceive of solution of the problem in a tangible,
immediate way, of returning to a specific home."
According to Barkan, Israel would greatly profit if it were willing to join the Palestinians in the discussion:
"I am not aware of any treaties in which the stronger side reached a settlement that caused it to lose ground. Israel is in such a strong position that if it entered a dialogue, it could only profit from the end of the conflict. Israel is too strong to be afraid of dialogue
or fear this mass return, which is all so metaphoric."
Q. What you're saying is that it would be sufficient if we recognized the suffering caused to the Palestinian people, since there is no possibility of recognizing the right of return?
"There is a possibility of recognizing the right of return."
Q. In other words, recognizing the suffering caused to the Palestinian people without this having any practical repercussions?
"Absolutely. In my opinion, the Palestinian right of return is a type of obstacle. It is a victim of rhetoric, and there is no attempt to gain a full understanding of what it means."
In his lecture (entitled "Return of refugees and
crossing the ethnic line of separation - a
comparative viewpoint") at the University of Haifa conference, Barkan said that the total global refugee population currently numbers some 20-40 million souls, based on who is counting. According to the United Nations, which defines a refugee as someone living
outside his or her national homeland due to fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinion, there are currently 20.5 million refugees worldwide. The UN recognizes one additional category: people who live in their home country, but have been expelled from their homes. This group numbers some 6.5 million persons.
The differences in how the refugee population is
tabulated, Barkan asserts, testify to the severity of the problem. "If we consider refugees to be those who flee dangerous situations, be it the result of an internal
national struggle or due to an ethnic conflict, the total number is closer to 40 million," he said in his lecture.
Since 1985 or so, Barkan continued, the international community has viewed the return of refuges to their homeland as the solution of choice to the problem. Nevertheless, the source of suffering of many refugees is, in fact, their close connection with a certain region of their country, in which they constitute a minority.
Historical fixation
When he looked at the historic precedents of return of refugees, Barkan found that the majority of refugees do not return to their homeland or receive compensation, and this is unconnected to the circumstances of how they became refugees. In the past 20 years, it has become customary to think, he said, that rehabilitation and reconciliation in countries
that have had ethnic disputes depend on the return of the refugees in accordance with the previous ethnic divisions; if the previously existing ethnic mix is not renewed, the acts of hostility will continue.
However, study of conflict resolution shows that
renewing the multi-ethnic composition is not a
guarantee of peace. Nor is it needed for peace,
as a precondition for solving the refugee problem. Barkan explains that in certain cases, refugees returned to their homeland before a peace agreement was achieved, while in others, they returned after an agreement was signed. The critical elements in these agreements were territory and security, not return of refugees. In only two instances did the right of return
form the essence of the peace treaty: in Bosnia
and in Rwanda. In Bosnia, the return of refugees failed, and peace succeeded. In Rwanda, the return succeeded to a limited extent.
In his studies on the influence of history on
contemporary politics, Barkan focuses on historic fixation and how it causes present-day conflicts. As an example, he cites the Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915, which to this day plays a primary role in the conflict between the Armenians and the Turks. Fixation on history occurs, says Barkan, when a people is not able to overcome history or adopt it
into its normal way of life. Since the Armenians did not receive any recognition of their suffering, it became the essence of the Armenian diaspora's existence.
Another example concerns the millions of German
refugees following World War II. For 50 years,
these refugees, who at the end of the war numbered 7-8 million, were barely included in the political discourse. In the past two or three years, they have begun to demand discussion of their problem. "The suffering of the German victims has suddenly become a primary dimension in the political discourse," said Barkan," because it had not received recognition at any previous stage."
Barkan is planning to set up groups that will discuss issues of historic crimes and injustices, in an attempt to use history as a means for resolving conflicts. The discussion groups would be established in a relatively new institute that Barkan runs in the United States
- the Institute for Historic Justice and Reconciliation. Barkan says that historians have an opportunity to examine historic documentation, to find the lies and propaganda that became part of the conflict and to reduce non-agreement between the sides.
He intends to convene in Salzburg a group of Zionist historians and Palestinian historians, who would discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by means of a detailed examination - what exactly the disagreement is about, how the sequence of events transpired, what elements may feasibly be agreed upon. Barkan believes that an examination of the facts without the
involvement of politicians would make it possible to reach many agreements and reduce gaps. The findings would then become part of the public debate.
