As we have seen in the Iraq War and its aftermath, the United States can bring tremendous progress to troubled areas of the world. Sometimes, the value of that progress or the legitimacy of our intervention may be questionable ? but not when it comes to easing the suffering of refugees. The ethical and practical value of helping refugees get back on their feet and back in control of their own lives is something nearly all people can agree upon. So why aren't we doing more for Palestinian refugees?

With the proper action, we could end the suffering of these Arab refugees. Furthermore, it could be done without US military force, UN sanctions, or the donation of huge amounts of money. The solution has been obvious and available for the past 50 years: Free the refugees.

While warehoused in a camp, a refugee has limited ability to provide for himself and his family. He is stuck in poverty and dependency, at the mercy of the thugs and terrorist gangs that operate in the camps. However, once elevated to citizenship, his situation would be much improved ? and he would be less likely to risk it all by cooperating with terrorists.

Refugees who are confined to camps cannot be assimilated into the workforce or society of their host country. They are entirely at the mercy of their host, which can be intransigent about granting rights to refugees. In Lebanon, for example, the government bars Palestinian refugees from more than 70 professions. It prohibits Palestinian property ownership and inheritance, and restricts refugee access to schools, hospitals and other social services. This treatment denies specific human rights as described in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: the rights to basic education, to work or to own property, to move freely and, essentially, to pursue a normal life. Ten years in this kind of limbo is a horrible prospect ? and the Palestinians have been trapped in it for over 50 years.

One might expect UN organizations to work toward securing these human rights for refugees, yet the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) exemplifies unhelpful refugee assistance. It was created specifically to take responsibility for Arab refugees in 1948 who left their villages in Israel intending to return once the war to kill Jews was over. It seems strange -- the Middle East population displacement (an exchange of approximately 600 thousand Arab Jews for 600 thousand Palestinian Arabs) seems miniscule compared to the other great population exchanges of the post-World War II period.

Compare the refugee populations on the Indian subcontinent in the 1950s: 8.5 million Sikhs and Hindus relocated to India and 6.5 million Muslims transferred to Pakistan. Oddly enough, these Indian and Pakistani refugees didn't get their own UN refugee organization. Neither did those from Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Liberia, Sudan, Tanzania, Angola, Burundi, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, China, Bosnia, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else. All the rest of the world's refugees (there are about 12 million this year) make do with one UN office ? the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Although both refugee organizations coexist under the UN umbrella, there are some very significant differences. According to the 1951 UN Convention, to be classified as a refugee, a person must have a well-grounded fear of persecution if returned to his native land or his habitual residence. Thereafter, the organizational goal is not to maintain the refugee indefinitely, but to promote real solutions. And assimilation into a different country is specifically included as an acceptable solution. Refugee status ends as soon as the refugee is repatriated or acquires a new nationality.

The UNRWA, however, uses a unique standard to define its refugees: any Arab who resided in the Palestine Mandate territory between June 1946 and May 1948, who subsequently lost a job and home and was in need of assistance, could be legally entered on the rolls as a refugee. These extremely loose criteria for refugee status result in very significant, even bizarre, effects. One could be classified as a refugee even if:

* He was an economic migrant who had been in Israel for a mere two years prior to its independence;

* He abandoned his home and job voluntarily and against the request of the Israeli government that he stay; or

* He faced no risk of persecution if he returned.

Furthermore, any refugee descendant has refugee status; it never ends. According to the UNRWA, the umpteenth-generation descendant of one of these refugees is forever a Palestinian refugee, even if he is a fully assimilated citizen in another country. Thus, an eternal legacy is created out of what should have been a temporary problem.

The UNRWA categorically rejects and resists resettlement of its refugees in other countries. It has been Arab policy since 1948 to insist on the "inalienable right of return" for refugees, and here's why:

"...in demanding the restoration of the refugees to Palestine, the Arabs intend that they shall return as the masters of the homeland, and not as slaves. More explicitly, they intend to annihilate the state of Israel...." -- Muhammad Saleh Ed-Din, Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1949

According to the PLO, this cynical use of the refugees for political ends is still the explicit Arab policy: "Arab countries, with the notable exception of Jordan, have usually sought to preserve a Palestinian identity by maintaining the Palestinians' status as refugees."(1)

The "inalienable right of return" for refugees doesn't exist in international law, only in General Assembly non-binding recommendations, and only in reference to Arab refugees from Israel. In fact, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that forbade Israel from moving refugees out of their temporary shelters and into new homes, since this would violate their "inalienable right of return" to the homes that they (or their grandparents) left in 1948.(2)

This explains why these refugees, unlike any other in the world, have been warehoused in camps for over 50 years. They have been pawns for generations, trapped by Arab hopes of destroying the Jewish State.

There are currently 59 UNRWA-controlled camps warehousing 1,263,000 refugees: eight in Gaza, 19 in Judea and Samaria, 12 in Syria, 12 in Lebanon and 10 in Jordan. These camps represent a significant threat to the welfare of Israel; UNRWA admits shamelessly that it hires members of terrorist groups.(3) Camps under UNRWA control have been used for weapons smuggling, recruiting and training of terrorists, bomb building, and dispatching of homicide bombers. Some reports claim that the UNRWA even allows the use of its property (offices, schools, hospitals) as training centers, weapons stores and safe houses.(4) Clearly, shutting down the UNRWA would be in the best interests of the refugees and Western governments, as it will be a prerequisite to the demilitarization of the camps and the disarmament of the terrorists.

While it can take credit for much good work, the UN does not have an unblemished reputation. Its failures to live up to its potential have been too consistent, too painful and too deliberate. It has failed miserably to protect victims from aggressors, as in Srebrenica, Rwanda, Saddam's Iraq and currently in Darfur. It has missed many opportunities where decisive action might have prevented wars, and apparently, it is tainted with corruption at its highest levels of administration. These are all good reasons not to give uncritical support to its every operation.

Organizations like the UNRWA exist through voluntary funding, which gives Western nations considerable leverage. The US currently provides 30% of the UNRWA's budget, and the European nations collectively cover 55 % of its budget. As for the Arab states, in the year 2000 Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other Gulf Emirates together contributed just over 2% of its budget, while Egypt, Iraq and Syria gave nothing. It is beyond absurd that Western donors are providing funds so that the Arab states can breed terrorists to perpetuate the misery of refugees and other victims.

There is a much better, more humane solution: Put the UNRWA out of business. Support the human rights of the refugee descendants by actively pursuing a policy of resettlement, with the goal of eventually closing all of the refugee warehouse camps. Will the Arab nations complain? Of course. But their hostage-refugees deserve a chance for a better life.

There are 22 Arab countries in which there would be minimal difficulty posed by language or culture and settling the refugees therein seems the most humane solution. Just as President Reagan was able to influence the Soviet Union by linking trade agreements to its human rights record, so can Western donor nations link trade and aid agreements with Arab countries to their human rights record. It is past time to insist that the Arab states allow immigration of Arab refugees, and assimilate them by granting them full citizenship rights. Such linkage is both practical and moral, and in the war against terror, it is unconscionable not to use every bit of leverage to improve the freedom and well-being of all of the inhabitants of the Middle East.

[Author's note: much of the data presented here can be found in several reports by Arlene Kushner, especially A Report: UNRWA The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Center for Near East Policy Research, Wellesley, MA) March 2003.]

Note:

1) The Palestinian Refugees FACTFILES, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Department of Refugee Affairs, Ramallah, 2000, p.22.

2) The document can be retrieved at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r165.htm.

3) See article at http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/03/unwra041003.html.

4) See article at http://www.honestreporting.com/.../UNRWAs_Hamas_Employees.asp.