LFI’s recycled proposals have long been discredited

The Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) could not have chosen a worse time to release their briefing paper on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In the ten days that preceded the release, Israel had bombed eight UNRWA schools in Gaza. The worst of these was that of Abu Oraiban School in Nuseirat refugee camp where 2,000 displaced people were sheltering. In the aftermath, Philippe Lazzarini, the agency’s commissioner-general, confirmed that in the last nine months Israel had attacked more than 190 UNRWA facilities in Gaza.

As it were, the LFI briefing paper made no mention of these atrocities, or the need to hold those responsible accountable. Instead, they recycled a catalogue of failed recommendations from the defunct Oslo process. Notable among these was their call for the transfer of UNRWA’s resources and mandate to “a reformed and revitalised Palestinian Authority.” This very proposal was made 30 years ago by the US delegation to the 1994 multilateral talks on refugees. It never saw the light of day.

So, why have the US, Israel and their allies been so hostile to UNRWA? The LFI brief provides an answer. It says there are fundamental concerns “about the role of the agency in perpetuating rather than resolving the Palestinian refugee question.”

The argument that UNRWA has perpetuated the refugee crisis is premised largely on the fact that it did not seek to integrate the refugees in the countries where they sought refuge. Obviously, it had no mandate to do so.

READ: ‘There is no alternative to UNRWA’ – UN chief tells pledge conference

What the LFI and similar pro-Israel lobbyists have refused to acknowledge is that UNRWA is not the cause of the refugee problem but rather a manifestation of its existence. In fact the problem of the Palestine refugees has arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UNGA Resolution 2535 (XXIV) B, 10 December 1969].

Since its inception, the resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem has always been the direct responsibility of the international community and the United Nations in particular.  It was the latter which created the problem when it approved the partition of Palestine that led to the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

In the event, three UN organisations were assigned the task of guaranteeing the rights and determining the obligations of states toward the Palestinian refugees. They were: the United Nations Conciliation Committee for Palestine (UNCCP), the United Nations relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

With the adoption of Resolution 194 in 1948, the UN had effectually acknowledged the magnitude of its responsibility toward the refugees. It declared that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.”

Simultaneously, Resolution 194 established a Conciliation Commission with the specific instruction to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees (paragraph 11).

There were, besides, other resolutions that proved the enormity of the UN responsibility toward the refugees and their right of return. One important example is Resolution 273, which granted Israel membership to the UN. Since that membership was conditioned on Israel’s acceptance of Resolution 194 and the Palestinian right of return, it seems duplicitous that the LFI should claim that return to Israel is “unreasonable”.

Instead of allowing the refugees to return to their homes, the LFI suggests that they should go to “a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.” Surely in this context, there must be no confusion between the return of the refugees to their homes and the sovereignty of the proposed state of Palestine. While sovereignty is a political act in which a state extends its recognised authority over a territory; the right of return is an inalienable right applied to man and his home, wherever his home is located. [Abu Sitta]

READ: ‘Humanitarian situation in Gaza is a moral stain on us all’: UN chief

For this reason, Resolution 3236 [22 November 1974] is especially explicit about the geography and destinations to which the refugees should return. It affirmed “the national inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including the right to self-determination without external interference.” Paragraph 2 of this resolution “reaffirms also the inalienable rights of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.”

On their part, the Palestinians maintain that neither time or space constitute genuine obstacles to their return. For if the Jews were able to claim a right of return after 3,000 years, they see no justifiable reason why the same right should be denied them 75 years after their Nakba (Catastrophe). Furthermore, since there is enough space to absorb every Jew from all over the world, there can be no justification for discriminating against Palestinians.

Palestinians in Gaza see UNRWA funding cuts as ‘death sentence’ – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/Middle East Monitor]

Finally, the LFI document takes issue with the fact that “UNRWA is the only UN refugee support agency with a mandate for a specific population.” There was clearly reason for this. By creating UNRWA and excluding the Palestinians refugees from the supervision and jurisdiction of the High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) the UN wanted to assert its direct responsibility for the refugees. Hence while ensuring UNRWA is specifically charged with the task of providing assistance and relief to the refugees it was upheld that that has to be done “without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194;” meaning that the refugees wishing to return should be allowed to do so.

Whatever its shortcomings, and they were many, no one can deny the outstanding service UNRWA has provided to the refugees throughout that past seven decades. As such, any attempt to dispense with, or liquidate the agency before the refugee issue is resolved will rightly encounter vigorous opposition from the international community.

Therefore, instead of recycling the tired and discredited proposals of the past, it behoves the LFI and fellow travellers to ensure that Israel honours the terms and conditions of its membership in the UN.

READ: UK reinstates funding to UNRWA

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.