Lebanon is home to hundreds of thousands of Arabs claiming to be refugees from Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. The Lebanese have consistently denied the refugees legal, permanent settlement in their country, the right to join the professions, the right to own land, and other aspects of permanent residency. Recently, the Lebanese press has addressed the issue of permanently resettling the refugees in Lebanon, in light of recent proposals by European and US legislators to that effect.
Beirut’s L’Orient Le Jour newspaper carried an article this past week by columnist Emile Khoury, wherein he cautioned against letting the refugees settle in Lebanon. Instead, he recommended, they can remain - as refugees - for the benefit of the Lebanese polity.
“Ever since they first set foot in Lebanon during the 1948 exodus, the likelihood of their eventual resettlement here has been an ever-growing issue,” Khoury wrote. The columnist also noted that, just as Israel refused to consider taking in the Arab refugees of the 1948 war - in order to preserve domestic safety and demographic balance - so, too, for Lebanon. Khoury recalled in his French-language article that, in 1991, the Lebanese government rejected any talk of a resettlement in Lebanon, despite the promise of a $20 billion compensation package.
In his column, Khoury laid out the options before the “Palestinian refugees”: integration in their new-found countries or remaining refugees. In the case of Lebanon, the writer stated, attempting to absorb the refugees into the society would wreak havoc. Therefore, he concluded, as permanent refugees, choosing to remain refugees, they would not represent a threat to the country’s political balance.
An article in the Arabic-language an-Nahar newspaper, also out of Beirut, takes a more pro-active position. The author, columnist Ali Hamadeh, advocated on November 9th that the best solution to the Arab refugee status in Lebanon is, surprisingly, transfer. Hamadeh called for “paving the way” for many of the Arab refugees now living in Middle Eastern host countries to emigrate to affluent states, like the United States, Canada and Australia. Magnanimously, Hamadeh does admit for the possibility that “between 100,000 and 150,000 Palestinians would be allowed to stay here as members of an Arab nationality, in the same manner as other Arabs like the Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians could.”
In an enlightening passage, the Lebanese columnist puts the lie to claims that Lebanon will not resettle the refugees in its borders for the refugees' sakes, so that they can one day return to “Palestine”. Rather, he makes it clear that internecine Arab rivalry is the major factor behind discrimination against the refugees. In his article, Hamadeh attempted to dismiss Lebanese fears by noting that proposals to permit the Arab refugees to stay on in Lebanon are different from granting them resettlement in the country. However, due to the civil-war-induced local animosity to the “Palestinian refugees”, many Lebanese fail to see the difference and are therefore fiercely opposed, he wrote.
In any event, Hamadeh noted, “the prelude to the 1989 Taif National Accord, which has become Lebanon’s post-civil war constitution, has lifted any remaining doubt over the issue of the resettlement of Palestinians here. The Taif Accord has said clearly that no resettlement of Palestinians could take place.” It was, he wrote, out of the question.
At the same time, Hamadeh astutely observed that “much of the recent storm over the resettlement issue was aimed at inciting either public anger toward the Palestinians or solidarity with them.” The refugee issue, Hamadeh wrote, is used to distract the Lebanese people from other burning domestic issues facing all Lebanese - like the economy.
Beirut’s L’Orient Le Jour newspaper carried an article this past week by columnist Emile Khoury, wherein he cautioned against letting the refugees settle in Lebanon. Instead, he recommended, they can remain - as refugees - for the benefit of the Lebanese polity.
“Ever since they first set foot in Lebanon during the 1948 exodus, the likelihood of their eventual resettlement here has been an ever-growing issue,” Khoury wrote. The columnist also noted that, just as Israel refused to consider taking in the Arab refugees of the 1948 war - in order to preserve domestic safety and demographic balance - so, too, for Lebanon. Khoury recalled in his French-language article that, in 1991, the Lebanese government rejected any talk of a resettlement in Lebanon, despite the promise of a $20 billion compensation package.
In his column, Khoury laid out the options before the “Palestinian refugees”: integration in their new-found countries or remaining refugees. In the case of Lebanon, the writer stated, attempting to absorb the refugees into the society would wreak havoc. Therefore, he concluded, as permanent refugees, choosing to remain refugees, they would not represent a threat to the country’s political balance.
An article in the Arabic-language an-Nahar newspaper, also out of Beirut, takes a more pro-active position. The author, columnist Ali Hamadeh, advocated on November 9th that the best solution to the Arab refugee status in Lebanon is, surprisingly, transfer. Hamadeh called for “paving the way” for many of the Arab refugees now living in Middle Eastern host countries to emigrate to affluent states, like the United States, Canada and Australia. Magnanimously, Hamadeh does admit for the possibility that “between 100,000 and 150,000 Palestinians would be allowed to stay here as members of an Arab nationality, in the same manner as other Arabs like the Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians could.”
In an enlightening passage, the Lebanese columnist puts the lie to claims that Lebanon will not resettle the refugees in its borders for the refugees' sakes, so that they can one day return to “Palestine”. Rather, he makes it clear that internecine Arab rivalry is the major factor behind discrimination against the refugees. In his article, Hamadeh attempted to dismiss Lebanese fears by noting that proposals to permit the Arab refugees to stay on in Lebanon are different from granting them resettlement in the country. However, due to the civil-war-induced local animosity to the “Palestinian refugees”, many Lebanese fail to see the difference and are therefore fiercely opposed, he wrote.
In any event, Hamadeh noted, “the prelude to the 1989 Taif National Accord, which has become Lebanon’s post-civil war constitution, has lifted any remaining doubt over the issue of the resettlement of Palestinians here. The Taif Accord has said clearly that no resettlement of Palestinians could take place.” It was, he wrote, out of the question.
At the same time, Hamadeh astutely observed that “much of the recent storm over the resettlement issue was aimed at inciting either public anger toward the Palestinians or solidarity with them.” The refugee issue, Hamadeh wrote, is used to distract the Lebanese people from other burning domestic issues facing all Lebanese - like the economy.