Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has requested as a precondition for any further negotiations with the Arabs that they withdraw their demand for the "right of return" of the 1948 refugees and their descendents. The common argument for this precondition is that such a "right of return" would amount to a demographic Arab Muslim takeover of the State of Israel, which wants to remain a democratic Jewish state.

Setting this precondition is fully justified but for completely different reasons. For one, the question to be asked is: Who is responsible for the refugee problem in the first place? Irrespective of the "classical" argument whether all or part of those refugees left the Israeli territory out of their own volition, it is clear that they left as a result of the war of 1948.

Whoever is responsible for that war is responsible for its refugees. We all know that the war of 1948 was launched by a coalition of Arab countries, under the auspices of the Arab League, with the declared intent to eradicate the fledgling Jewish state. That assault was in flagrant defiance of international law (a belligerent crossing of an international border, like the German invasion of Poland in 1939) and it was also in blatant violation of the 1947 UN resolution that recognized the establishment of the Jewish state. Consequently, the responsibility for the refugee problem rests fully on the Arab aggressor countries.

However, the Arabs who deny the legitimacy of establishing a Jewish state in an "Arab territory," claim that their military campaign was justified. It was certainly justified by Islamic law, which forbids conceding of any "Arab land" to infidels.

But if that Arab claim was accepted, then:

The legitimacy of the State of Israel is in question, in spite of its recognition by the USA, USSR and by the UN, as long as it has not been recognized by the militant neighboring Arab states.

If the 1948 attack was legally justified, then the responsibility for the refugees of that war would fall on Israel. In other words, any concession on the question of "right of return" would imply that the State of Israel is illegitimate and that the Arab failed campaign was legal and justified. Furthermore, if that campaign was legal and justified, so were also the Arab attacks in 1967 and 1973, and so is the PLO Intifada in the last thirty months. Arafat and his cohorts at Camp David understood this very well when they refused to budge on the issue of the "right of return."

Any Arab concession on this crucial issue implies legitimacy of the Jewish state and an end to "justifiable" attacks on it, whether by military invasion or by terrorist attacks. This is the true reason for the Arab's refusal to settle "Palestinian" refugees in their countries. A concerted official Arab effort would have been an admission of responsibility for the 1948 war and would legitimize the Jewish state. Arab propaganda has successfully converted this political legal topic into a humanitarian issue. The plight of the refugees has been callously exploited by the Arab leadership to put political pressure on Israel. Arab politicians are smarter than meets the eye, while for some odd reason, the political leadership in Israel has blinded itself during and after the 1991 Madrid Conference, ignoring this critical legal issue. Ariel Sharon must be well aware of the different implications of the "right of return" and justifiably refuses to proceed with any concession before this issue is put to rest.

It must be emphasized that the refugee problem is not an issue between Israel and the "Palestinian" Arabs but between Israel and the Arab states that attacked her in 1948. It is surprising that this important fact is not being highlighted and is therefore little known to the American or the Israeli public. Yet President Bush and his advisors must be well aware of this critical facet of the "peace process" that he is trying so sincerely to promote. This is probably the reason he repeatedly stated the need for all the Arab countries "to be involved" in the peace process.

Secretary of State Powell, on the other hand, seems to be trying to find ways to reduce the tension between the PA and Israel by "small" confidence building steps (see the Mitchell Plan). But this means treating the symptoms, reducing the fever, instead of curing the disease. The "disease" is the illegitimacy of the Arab attack in 1948. The cure is recognition of that fact and consequently granting the Jewish state full recognition by all Arabs as the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. Avoiding this issue or postponing it for later "discussions" is going to leave the disease uncured, asking for additional violent eruptions at any time in the future.

There is still another aspect of the "right of return" that deserves attention even if there were just 100,000 refugees, a number whose return would not affect the demographic balance in the Jewish state. Would those returning Arab refugees recognize Israel as the historical homeland of the Jewish people or continue to demand the elimination of the Jewish state in concert with Arabs in the surrounding countries? Were these refugees unconditionally admitted by Israel then they would feel justified to continue to deny the legitimacy of Israel. They would then become an incipient "fifth column" ideologically obligated to help their brethren in future Arab attacks on the Jewish state. Moreover, the same ideological obligation will then apply also to the current Arab citizens of Israel. In other words, even the admission of a limited number of Arab refugees, as naively offered by former Prime Minister Barak in 2000, could have had disastrous consequences for the Jewish state.

Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.

Talk Back! Respond to this view

Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.