The right of return of diaspora Palestinians implies their right to choose to return. Khalil Shikaki* replies to Salman Abu Sitta In an article in the Wall Street Journal (8 August 2003) and later in the National Review Online (13 August 2003) Max Abrahms of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy misrepresented the findings of a recent poll among Palestinian refugees. Among the untruths claimed by Mr Abrahms has been the claim that the poll presented the refugees with a false choice. Similarly, in a recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly (14 - 20 August 2003), claiming to defend the refugees' right of return, Salman Abu Sitta could not find faults with a recent poll among Palestinian refugees except by misrepresenting the findings and distorting the methodology. One can understand why a right-wing Likudnic who denies the refugees right of return would seek to distort the findings of a Palestinian poll, but it is surprising to see a Palestinian joining the war on the same poll. Moreover, while one would excuse ignorance, it is difficult to ignore malicious intent and vicious character assassination that pervade Abu Sitta's piece. Mr Abu Sitta, who knows nothing about the suffering of refugees, as he himself enjoys the privilege of more than one European citizenship and multiple passports and lives a highly comfortable life in European and Arab Gulf states, is essentially denying the refugees' right to choose. His not-so-clever attempt to hide this fact, comes out loud and clear through his insistence on deceiving his readers by fabricating results and misrepresenting the essential conclusions of the poll in the same way Abrahms does. I should know, as I run the centre that conducted the poll and released its findings. Had it been the right of return Abu Sitta was after, he would have found the results not only fully supporting that right, but more importantly strengthening the Palestinian negotiators' insistence on it while making it possible for Israel to grant it. It is precisely because of the significance of the findings for negotiators that someone like Abrahms sought to distort the poll findings. Those who openly deny the rights of Palestinian refugees are of two kinds: those who deny the refugees' right of return and those who deny the refugees right to choose. The right of return is based on international laws and norms and the right to choose is based on respect for human rights and the dignity of mankind. Since a viable right to choose can only be obtained if the right of return is granted, those who deny the first right deny the second as well. Those who deny the right to choose essentially serve the interests of those who deny the right of return by strengthening their argument against the recognition of the right of return, an argument that falsely claims that such recognition would pose an existential threat to the state of Israel. They also show total disregard for the wishes and interests of millions of refugees; therefore they are partly responsible for their suffering. Individuals on both sides of the argument, deniers of the right of return and deniers of the right to choose, have found faults with the refugee poll that have been conducted in the West Bank-Gaza, Lebanon, and Jordan among 4500 refugee families during the first half of 2003. Initiated and conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah and supported mostly by the UNDP through a Japanese government grant, the poll was designed by dozens of Palestinian researchers, negotiators, and planners. It sought to examine the legitimacy of a Taba-based refugee settlement that recognised the right of return and gave the refugees the right to choose. For planning purposes, the poll also sought to obtain useful empirical data on the numbers and profile of those wishing to make the state of Palestine their permanent place of residence. illustration: Gamil Shafik The Taba-based solution gave the refugees five options: return to Israel, return to areas now in Israel that would later come under Palestinian sovereignty as part of a territorial exchange, living in the Palestinian state, living in host countries, and immigration to a third country. In our poll, respondents were asked to express support or opposition to this solution. They were also asked to choose the option they like most, or refuse all options and describe in their own words the solution and option they prefer. They could rank their choices based on a hierarchy of priorities, so that if return to Israel was not their first choice, it could still be the second, third, fourth, or fifth. The need to rank the choices was dictated by two factors. First, we wanted to give respondents the opportunity to choose options that might not have seemed "realistic" to them given the prevailing political conditions. Indeed, as it turned out, only a small minority believed that Israel would accept the proposed Taba-based solution even though a large majority believed that the PLO leadership would accept it. Secondly, ranking the choices was dictated by the need of planners to make contingency plans for absorption in the Palestinian state. Israel denies the right of return and refuses to implement UN Resolution 194, considered by the Palestinians and the international community as the basis of resolving the refugee issue. By doing so, Israel makes it impossible for Palestinians and Israelis to reach a comprehensive permanent agreement. Survey research I, and many others, have conducted among Palestinian refugees during the last 10 years indicates beyond any shadow of doubt that the overwhelming majority of them consider the right of return sacred. Any agreement that does not recognise that right would lack legitimacy in the eyes of all Palestinians, refugees and non-refugees alike. A state established on the basis of such agreement would lack legitimacy and viability, making it dangerous to itself and its neighbours. In an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal on 30 July, I argued that the poll findings show that Israel must, and can, recognise the right of return as the overwhelming majority of Palestinian refugees wants to live under Palestinian sovereignty in a Palestinian state while only one per cent of all the refugees want to have Israeli citizenship. Replying to the article and contradicting my assessment, Max Abrahms argued that the PSR poll in fact shows that Palestinian refugees in the areas polled "remain fiercely committed to relocating to Israel". The conclusion of this right-wing supporter of Israel is that the Palestinians want to dismantle the Jewish state and become the majority in Israel. This fits very well with the Israeli claim that an Israeli recognition of the right of return at the negotiating table would be tantamount to committing national suicide, a classic argument of those denying the right of return. A handful of fanatics on the Palestinian side insist on denying the refugees' right to choose. A refugee who chooses to live in the Palestinian state or to remain in the host country after being granted the right of return is seen as renouncing that same right. Therefore, this refugee must be a traitor. Take for example, how they interpreted the results of the poll -- in which the refugees where offered the right to choose -- to mean a denial of the right of return. Indirectly, those Palestinians support Israel and its claims by insisting that any and all implementation of the right of return must by definition be to Israel. In doing so, they confirm in the minds of the Israelis and their supporters in the international community that the Palestinian national movement seeks to establish two Palestinian states in historic Palestine, one in which no Jews are allowed to live and one in which the Palestinians constitute the majority. This Israeli claim would make sense only if the Palestinian national movement insists that return to Israel is the only means of exercising the right of return. The Palestinian national movement makes no such demand; it gives refugees the right to choose. But by creating a false but heightened threat perception among the Israelis, the Palestinian deniers of the right to choose contribute to making it impossible for those Palestinians refugees -- who are determined to go back to their homes and towns inside Israel -- to attain their life-long dream of doing so. Abu Sitta is one of those Palestinians who deny the refugees' right to choose, his claim to the contrary notwithstanding. Putting aside the sickening and hysteric personal attacks by Abu Sitta on other Palestinians, he remains at loss. In attacking the poll methodology, he suggests that PSR should have asked activist and social services' groups working among refugees to conduct the poll. His inability to distinguish between sports and youth clubs and survey research institutes is inexcusable. But his main attempt to deceive the readers revolves around his core claim that the poll deliberately limited the choices of the refugees and provided respondents with disincentives so that only a small group would seek to return to Israel. Nothing could be far from the truth. While a Taba-based agreement would indeed restrict the number of returnees to Israel once the right of return is granted, the survey itself could not possibly limit the choices of respondents. To give credence to this false claim, Abu Sitta argues that section four of the poll questionnaire inquired about willingness of respondents to receive Israeli citizenship only, or agree to do a national service in Israel once comprehensive peace is achieved, or whether -- if their homes and villages were destroyed -- they would insist on returning to those original places or accept to live elsewhere in Israel. What Abu Sitta failed to tell his readers is that these questions, while sensitive to some, are asked only after refugees' choices have already been made in the preceding section, number three, of the questionnaire and that therefore, these questions are irrelevant when it comes to the decision on what choice to select since that has already been made. Findings published by PSR on refugees' choices were based on the results of section three. Mr Abu Sitta knew that fully well when he deliberately decided to deceive his readers and lie to them. He clumsily attempts to hide the fact that these sensitive questions were asked only of those who have already decided to go to Israel. Had he known one thing or two about survey research, he would have quickly realised that these questions were meant to help our researchers understand the motivation of those particular respondents, not to inquire about their choices. Once respondents made their choices in section three of the questionnaire, the poll allocated the following sections to each option selected. Only those who selected that option were asked by the poll to reply to the questions in the relevant section. Quantitative social science does not seek to take a simple still picture of reality; it seeks to explain it as well. Understanding the motivation structure of refugees help our researchers predict behaviour when the political conditions of today change. Finally, when Abu Sitta does not like the poll findings, for example about Lebanon's refugees, he automatically jumps to the conclusion that the sample in Lebanon "is highly marginal and was probably secretly paid to 'sit' for the questionnaire in secret" as he wrote in his piece in Al-Ahram Weekly. Nonsense; sample selection followed the normal rules of random sampling in Lebanon and elsewhere. PSR researchers have conducted more than one hundred professional polls during the last 10 years. PSR has published full information on the exact locations of all its 1500 interviews among refugees in Lebanon. But let us have a closer look at the Lebanon findings he did not like. The results of the question on first choice in Lebanon indicated that 61 per cent of the refugees wanted to return to Israel, or to territories now inside Israel, in the following manner: 23 per cent selected return to Israel, 21 per cent selected to go to areas currently inside Israel but would later become part of the Palestinian state in a territorial exchange, and 17 per cent selected the option of returning to areas inside the Green Line but with Israel disappearing. The rest, 39 per cent made different choices as follows: 19 per cent opted to go to the Palestinian state in the West Bank-Gaza, nine per cent chose to immigrate to a third country, and 11 per cent opted to remain in Lebanon. To find these findings "unacceptable", you have to be highly ignorant of the socio- economic and political dynamics created since 1948, dynamics that the refugees in Lebanon had to endure under extremely difficult conditions. Palestinian and pro-Israel extremists found in the poll a common enemy, one because it offers refugees the right to choose and the other because its implications strengthen the Palestinian negotiating position. When given the right of return and the right to choose, the poll found refugees' perception of their national identity to provide sufficient explanation for their behaviour. The overwhelming majority of the refugees wishes to exercise self-determination by becoming citizens of the Palestinian state, not the state of Israel. Israel can no longer claim that its recognition of the right of return would automatically open a flood gate allowing millions of refugees to seek Israeli citizenship. It, therefore, can recognise the right. Those refugees wishing to exercise that right by returning to Israel and becoming citizens of that state can do so. Only extremists on both sides can not, or will not, see that simple logic. * The writer is a professor of political science and the director of the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, in Ramallah.
