And then there are the demands for "compensation." There has been talk in the U.S. of a "Marshall Plan" for the refugees -- what is overlooked is that they have already received far more money per capita than the countries that benefited from the Marshall Plan. Patrick Clawson points out in the Jerusalem Post (August 12, 2002) that the Marshall Plan distributed $60 billion in today's dollars or $272 per European in participating countries. The Palestinian Arabs have already received $4 billion or $1330 per person from the World Bank. In fact, the Marshall Plan was peanuts compared to what Palestinian Arab leaders have in mind. Journalist Ze'ev Schiff (Jerusalem Post, Jan. 3, 2001) notes that they demand a staggering $550 billion for refugee compensation. And the "moderate" Abu Mazen declared that it should be paid by Israel alone!

Iraq, Morocco and Algeria between them had almost half the population of expelled Jews; they should proportionately take responsibility for half the number of Arab refugees.

Schiff dubs one of the official documents on compensation submitted at Camp David so extreme that it could be regarded as a joke. The PA demanded that Israel compensate states like Syria and Jordan that provided refugees with asylum; that the PLO get compensation for public Palestinian Arab property that had remained in Israel; that returning refugees not be settled in areas that could "endanger their well-being;" that they receive automatic citizenship; that the right of return have no time limit though the registry for return would extend over five years; that an international committee monitor that the refugees are integrated and protected within Israel. Arafat's economic adviser Dr. Mahar al-Kurd has declared that in addition to refugee compensation, the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to damages since 1967 -- e.g. for exploitation of the "Palestinian beach front" on the Dead Sea.

Recently, much has been made of a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research that supposedly found while 95% of refugees questioned demanded that Israel recognize their right to return, most refugees would not exercise the right if given a choice. They would not be given a choice -- certainly not by the Palestinian Authority, which has over one and a half million registered refugees, nor by Lebanon or Syria which have nearly a million between them. In the camps, an outfit called the Higher Committee for the Return of Refugees has launched a consciousness-raising program in UNRWA schools to help children -- many of whom are three or four generations removed from any tie with land in Israel -- to bond with their "original" towns or villages, to which says the Committee "they must return and must be awarded their rights." Not to be outdone, Israeli Arabs have embarked on a similar program. The Arab Culture Association organizes "heritage outings" for Israeli Arabs to the villages their families once occupied. It declares that 250,000 Israeli Arab citizens within Israel have the right to go back "home." "We insist," says the Association, "on our right to realize the right of return."

Given all this nuttiness, it is little wonder that a State Department official is quoted as saying the refugee issue is "radioactive." But, as we have seen here, the lesson of the last 55 years is that the longer it is postponed, the more radioactive it gets. Before the fallout has catastrophic consequences for the region, and beyond, the issue needs to be confronted. And confronting it requires facing some obvious, if universally avoided realities. First among them is that the overwhelming majority of the population registered as refugees in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip -- both those in the camps and those living outside them -- must be settled elsewhere in the Arab world. The number of currently registered refugees in Judea and Samaria (it is foolish to call this the West Bank since Jordan severed ties with its "West Bank" in 1988) is 654,971 and in the Gaza Strip 907,221, a total of over one and a half million people, growing at a mind-boggling rate of 4% each year. There is no way this resourceless miniscule area -- combined only 2,400 square miles, a fourth of the size of tiny Israel -- can economically support this population. Leaving them where they are, even in the most modern new highrises, could only permanently entrench their dependence on international handouts for subsistence.

The fairest, most equitable, way to end the problem of the refugees is to base their resettlement on the population exchange that followed the 1948 Arab-Israel war. If 1948 is the starting point for the Arabs, it must also be the starting point for the Jews. Because so many Arab states had a substantial Jewish population, this also has the advantage of forcing a number of Arab states to take some share of responsibility for the refugees, without singling out or overwhelming any one of them. Wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, that did not have a Jewish population, could shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost. Returning to the population exchange also has the merit of throwing out the PA's $550 billion reparations "bill" at the outset. The Jews left far more property behind in Arab lands than Arabs in what became Israel; generously, Israel can offer to declare a washout. Making the Arab states face up to the task of resettlement will also have the merit of encouraging them to evaluate honestly claims to refugee status. While the international community footed the bill and the larger the

Outpost               - 6 -               September 2003