A new bill in the House of Representatives seeks to link resolution of the Palestinian refugee situation with the plight of Jews (and Christians) expelled from Arab lands. Both Palestinians and Jews suffered as a result of expulsions from their home countries during and after the creation of the State of Israel. Palestinians left and were forced to leave Israel (and the West Bank and Gaza). And most Jews living in Muslim countries left or were forced to leave their homes as well. The bill is designed to ensure that these Jews are not forgotten by linking resolution of their issues with resolution of the on-going Palestinian refugee crisis. The bill’s supporters state:
Any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement can only be credible and enduring if it resolves all issues related to the rights of all refugees in the Arab world and Iran, including Jews, Christians and others.
The legislation has bipartisan support in the House and calls on the Obama administration to pair any reference to Palestinian refugees with a similar reference to Jewish and other refugees.
While I agree that it is important to remember and address the grievances of Jews and others expelled from Arab lands (I recently wrote about this issue), linking the resolution of that problem with the issue of Palestinian refugees sets a dangerous precedent and undermines international law related to the protection of refugees.
The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) defines a refugee as:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
The majority of Palestinians who fled Israel and now live in various Arab countries are “refugees” according to this definition. They do “not [have] a nationality and [are] outside the country of [their] former habitual residence as a result of such events.” Of course one reason they remain refugees is because the different Arab governments have refused to grant them citizenship. The other reason is that Israel does not permit them to return home.
As opposed to the Palestinians, the large majority of Jews who fled Arab countries are not “refugees” as that term is defined in international law. Most (if not all) such Jews have been granted citizenship in their new country of residence (be it Israel, the U.S., France or some other country). Also, for the most part, Jews expelled from Arab lands do not wish to return to their home countries. This does not mean that these Jews do not have legitimate claims for compensation for lost land, property, and the lives of loved ones. They most certainly do. But this is not the same as being a refugee. Thus, the new bill is factually incorrect when it refers to such Jews as refugees.
Far worse than the semantics of “who is a refugee” is the problem of politicizing a humanitarian benefit. Anyone who meets the definition of “refugee” is a refugee. Period. Such people are entitled to protection in the host country because they are refugees. There are no other requirements (though obviously there are exceptions for persecutors, criminals, and terrorists).
By linking the fate of one refugee population to another, the bill adds an external contingency to international refugee law. We no longer protect refugees because they are refugees. Now, we only protect them if some other conditions are met. Does this mean that we should deport legitimate asylum seekers from Mexico until Mexico compensates us for Pancho Villa’s 1916 invasion? Can Great Britain deny asylum to all Egyptians unless Egypt returns the Suez Canal? Is Japan permitted to reject all Chinese asylum seekers until China returns “Manchukuo?”
This is not how international refugee law works. We do not blame the victims and hold them hostage until some outside contingency–in this case a contingency not of their own making–is satisfied. In other words, it is not the fault of Palestinian refugees that Jews were expelled from Arab lands. So why should the Palestinians’ fate be tied to compensation for the Jewish “refugees” (something over which they have no control)?
I think the real motivation for this bill is not to help Jews from Arab lands. Rather, it is to justify Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinians to return to their homeland by demonstrating that there was suffering and loss “on both sides.” This seems to me a cynical and sinister use of international refugee law. I hope the bill will be soundly rejected.
I visited many sites except the audio quality for audio songs present at this web site is
truly excellent.
Hello! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group?
There’s a lot of people that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Cheers
Hi there to all, how is all, I think every one is getting more
from this website, and your views are pleasant for new people.
The issues are linked in so far there was an exchange of populations.
If you mean that compensation claims on either side will cancel each other out, they are not linked. The current thinking is that each refugees will be entitled to money from an international compensation fund.
No one is claiming that the Jews are still refugees (except for the fact they cannot return to Arab countries). They seek to be recognised for having been refugees in the past, a fact which the Arabs (and some leftists) deny. But as you say they are NOW entitled to compensation for property losses ( and presumably human rights abuses such as arrest, torture, etc) – I understand (pls correct me if I am wrong) that there is no statue of limitations for this.
But just because Palestinians remain refugees is not the fault of Israel. Arab states need to be held to account for failing to do their humanitarian duty – they are not entitled to extract a political cost (Right of Return) from Israel.
I’m not saying that the average Palestinian must be collectively punished for what happened to the Jews, but the Palestinian leadership must bear responsibility both for antisemitism in Arab countries and for the consequences of its intransigence, resulting in thousands of their own people becoming refugees. In which case, these refugees have a good case for suing their own leadership.
My understanding of the bill is that it refers to “Jewish refugees” and seeks to equate them with “Palestinian refugees.”
I think we are in agreement on at least one major point – Jews exiled from Arab lands are entitled to compensation. I think there is no international law standard for a statute of limitations on these claims, though it is generally quite difficult for a private individual to sue a sovereign state (though I once helped out in a lawsuit by Falun Gong members against the Chinese government – we didn’t get all that far, unfortunately). My point is, the effort to obtain compensation should not be linked to the Palestinian refugee issue. I understand why there might be practical reasons for doing so, but I think it sets a very bad precedent.
Hi Jason, thanks for your reply.
Jews are still refugees only in the sense that the UNCHR definition still applies” A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion..most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so.”
Not all Palestinians are stateless – ie those in Jordan and Christian Palestinians in Lebanon are not technically refugees. When it suits them, Arab states can and do give them citizenship. But it suits them politically not to. As a lawyer you should be militating against this flagrant abuse of their human rights.
As for the pogrom in Iraq, this was in no way an incident comparable to Baruch Goldstone, a single individual. The Farhud was orchestrated by the Palestinian leader of the Arab world, the Mufti of Jerusalem, whose prestige was unchallenged at the time. His pro-Nazi Jew-hatred was official policy. Up to 600 Jews may have been murdered, thousands injured and mutilated. Of course the Palestinians were involved: Some 500 Palestinians were in Baghdad inciting the locals. http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Farhud.
It is only recently that Palestinians have been projecting themselves as separate from the rest of the Arab world. Then they saw themselves as pan-Arabists; it is only because the Allies were too cowardly to bring the Mufti to justice that he was not tried as a Nazi war criminal.
The two refugee issues are also linked because an exchange of populations took place – as in the Indian-Pakistan war of 1947 and the Greek-Turkish conflict of the early 1920s.
Thank you – You raise several points that I agree with and a few I disagree with.
Once a person is resettled in a third country, he is no longer a refugee. Because the Sephardi Jews (and—as you point out—some Palestinians) have been resettled, they are not refugees any more. Again, this does not negate claims for losses suffered by the Jews, but since they are resettled, they simply do not meet the definition of “refugee” (in fact, my understanding is that several Sephardi Israeli law makers share this view and deny that they are refugees).
Your point that Palestinians did not have a separate identity until more recent times is well taken. Nevertheless, linking resolution of one group of refugees (Palestinians) with the resolution of fair compensation for another group (Sephardi Jews) adds a new requirement to the long-accepted definition of “refugee.” Politicizing the term refugee is nothing new, but it is a bad idea that weakens international law and potentially puts other refugees at risk.
Also, to the extent that I have anything to do with it, I strongly oppose the Arab countries’ treatment of Palestinians, which has ranged from manipulative to murderous. But since I am Jewish, I am more concerned with the morality of my own people.
Finally, I was not equating Baruch Goldstone with the Iraqi pogrom. I was merely illustrating the idea that collective blame is a bad thing. I don’t want to be blamed for a murderer like Goldstone, and I won’t blame a Palestinian child for the actions of the Mufti of Jerusalem.
You are wrong on several counts. The Jewish refugees had no choice but to leave their countries of birth owing to persecution and expulsion. They were by, any definition, refugees at the time. They no longer are refugees because their adopted countries gave them full citizenship. In other words, a humanitarian solution was applied.They do not want to return because they CAN’T: these countries remain as hostile and dangerous to Jews as the day they left. So by that definition they are still refugees vis-avis their homelands.
In the case of the Palestinians, everything was done to AVOID a humanitarian solution by depriving them of citizenship. You don’t mention that successive generations of Palestinians are able to qualify as ‘refugees’ by descent. Since when does refugee law include a right of return for grandchildren and great-grandchildren of refugees to a country where four-fifths of the present population do not share their language, culture and religion ?
You are wrong to claim that it is not the fault of Palestinians that the Jews were expelled from Arab lands. There is ample evidence that the Palestinians were the driving force behind the Arab war with Israel and antisemitism in Arab countries eg the 1941 Farhud pogrom in Iraq well BEFORE Israel’s creation. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/09/response-denigrating-jewish-refugees.html
Thank you for your comments – I certainly appreciate your website. It is a subject that has been of interest to me for some time (having visited Jewish sites in several Muslim countries). Anyway, my response:
First, the Jews who left Arab lands clearly were refugees at the time. However, they were resettled and obtained new citizenship, so they are no longer refugees. The fact that they cannot return to their original countries due to antisemitism does not change this.
Second, while it is terrible that generations of Palestinians have not been resettled – either in their homeland or in the lands of their exile – you are incorrect that they are not refugee as that term is defined under international law. They are stateless, and under the Refugee Convention, stateless people who meet the conditions described in my blog posting are refugees. (It also seems a bit contradictory of you to state that generations of Jews expelled from Arab lands are refugees, but generations of Palestinians expelled from Israel are not refugees).
Finally, your claim that the Palestinians were somehow at fault for Jews being expelled from Arab lands makes no sense. In your example of the pogrom in Iraq, are you claiming that Palestinians were responsible? I would think that the Iraqis were responsible for this. Further, I do not think there is much dispute that Palestinians engaged in antisemitic behavior (the most well-known example was the 1929 massacre in Hebron). However, I think it is difficult to make the case that Palestinians today should continue to be punished for an event they were not involved in. Baruch Goldstone murdered a number of Palestinians. Should all Jews be blamed for his act? Should all Jews be blamed for the recent firebomb attack against a Palestinian family in a taxi? We go down a very dangerous road when we engage in collective punishment of a group for the acts of some individuals in that group.
I stand by my original posting – Jews expelled from Muslim countries should be compensated for their losses. So too, Palestinian refugees should be resettled and granted citizenship – either in Israel, the Palestinian territories, other Muslim countries, or elsewhere. However, linking these two groups is counterproductive and damaging to international refugee law.