All refugee problems throughout the world have always been resolved within what many would regard a reasonable amount of time.
This is not the case with the Arab refugees who left Israel so Muslim countries could enter Israel, kill all the Jews, and then the Arabs would return. The Muslims and Arabs openly admitting they were intent on performing genocide, were surprised when the Israelis were not crushed, but rather, against all odds, fought brilliantly and valiantly and as such, emerged as the victors.
Everyday we hear or read something “new” about the situation in the Middle East, and it’s always veiled in a Post-Modern reconstructionist news-speak. Because those commentators, journalists and reporters, when reporting about Middle Eastern issues obviously don’t know their asses from holes in the ground, I decided to transcribe with minimal commentary, some background that I think should be required reading for students churned out by the left-leaning ivory towers at Columbia’s School of Journalism.
In rapid succession I am posting bite-size excerpts of this article: “Arab Refugees–A Record In Obstruction.” July 11, 2008 I posted “Part III: Arab Refugees–A Record In Obstruction.”
Here’s the most recent installment of the must-be-read by all who care to speak or write knowledgably about the Middle East.
As a reminder, Abba Eban wrote the following passages provided in quotations in 1957, four years after the General Assembly of the United Nations established an Agency charged with the task of “reintegrating the Arab refugees into the economic life of the Near East,” wherein the governments of that region were to secure “the permanent re-establishment of the refugees and their remove from relief.”
This assault on the General Assembly’s resolution led to its abandonment, and to new attempts to reach a settlement by direct agreements, first under the General Armistice system, which was to be followed, in the expectation of the General Assembly and the Security Council, by peace negotiations. Throughout this period Arab governments developed their doctrine on the nature of General Assembly resolutions. Here are a few quotations from statements by Syrian representatives:
“In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed.”
“I fail to find in this Charter any text which implies directly or indirectly that the General Assembly has the authority to enforce its own recommendations by military force…the General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights.”
The views of the present Foreign Minister of Egypt are on record as follows:
“No one can say that compliance is imperative or that States which do not comply with Assembly recommendations are acting against the Charter or undermining the structure of the United Nations. No one can speak of the General Assembly’s resolutions as if they were obligatory decisions …the Charter and the United Nations will not crumble, will not fall apart if one or more of the General Assembly’s resolutions is not put into affect.”
“We do not choose to comply with the General Assembly’s resolutions on Palestine. This is our privilege under the Charter.”
In defence of this Egyptian jurisprudence, Dr. Fawzi invoked eminent authority:
“We have seen that the United Kingdom Government does not intend to comply with the General Assembly recommendation (1947) for the progressive turning over of the Administration of Palestine to the United Nations Partition Commission.”
Another Arab statesman, now the President of Lebanon, recorded similar views:
“The General Assembly’s resolution of 1947 is a mere recommendations…it should be examined in the light of other recommendations of the General Assembly which have not been accepted by the country or groups of countries concerned and which have not been implemented.”
I do not propose to go deeply into the merits of these contributions by Arab delegates to our United Nations jurisprudence. I seek only to explain why we cannot possibly regard them as the sincere and consistent advocates of General Assembly resolutions. Those who denied those resolutions any validity at the time of their adoption are surely incongruous when they now suggest the resurrection of these resolutions without any allowance for the transformations of the passing years. Our Arab colleagues show no disposition to respect the decisions of the Security Council on belligerency and blockade; or the resolutions of the General Assembly on the need for peace negotiations and for close economic relations; or the resolution of the General Assembly defining Israel’s recognised sovereignty within the United Nations system. We shall not advace towards a solution of this intricate refugee problem by engaging in juridical debates with governments whose armed rebellion against United Nations policies is the original cause of the crisis which we confront today.
It would be more fruitful and constructive to summarize the reports of the Director of UNRWA and of his predecessors who have dealt with this problem since the establishment of the Agency five years ago.
Let us first understand clearly what the objectives of the Agency have been. The General Assembly, in its Resolution 393 (V) of 1950, called for the “reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East.” It advocated this reintegration on the grounds that it was essential “in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available and for the realisation of conditions of peace and stability in the area.”
Each year since 1950 the General Assembly has repeated its exhortations to the host governments to facilitate the reintegration into their economies of the refugees living on their soil; to offer them the opportunities of labor, education and free movement; to allow them to realise the opportunities existing in Arab economies for the beneficial absorption of refugees; and to cooperate in new development projects to be financed with generous international aid. If the recommendations of 1950 and of subsequent years had been sincerely carried out, the refugees would now be the productive members of the Arab societies to which they are bound by every link of sentiment, language, culture and national loyalty. It is therefore grievous to record that the Arab governments have denied this salvation to their own kinsmen–preferring to maintain their refugee status undiluted and uncompromised for the sake of a sterile political controversy.
Thus, in January 1952 the General Assembly requested the host governments to assume the administration of the relief program. In the report to the Eighth Session (1953) the Director stated bluntly and accuratedly that the Arab governments had “been reluctant to assume the administration of the relief program in accordance with the wish expressed by the General Assembly in its Resolution 513 (VI).”
Were refugees granted the right to work in the Arab states, great numbers of them could have thus become self-supporting. In its report to the Sixth Session the Agency complained that “no Government except Jordan had proclaimed their right [of the refugees] to stay,” neither did subsequent reports register any progress in this respect.
Over a number of years, the Agency has striven to eliminate the barriers which prevent the refugees from moving freely and seeking their own fortunes in the kindred Arab world. This problem of preedom of movement for refugees is of crucial importance. Recent years have witnessed a great expansion of economic potentialities in the Middle East. Last year the revenues of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from oil royalties alone amounted to 700 million dollars. This huge influx of wealth has opened up great opportunities of work and development into which the refugees, by virtue of their linguistic and national background, coult fit without any sense of dislocation. There cannot be any doubt that if free movement had been granted, there would have been a spontaneous absorption of thousands of refugees into these expanded Arab economies. It is precisely this that Arab governments have obstructed. Thus in the report to the Eighth Session, the Director describes their policies in a highly significant passage:
“The full benefit of the spread of this large capital investment [in Arab countries] will be felt only if restrictions on the movement of refugees are withdrawn. This is a measure which was proposed in the original three-year plan, but little has been done so far to give effect to it. Such freedom of movement would enable refugees to take full advantage of opportunities for work arising in countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf Sheikdoms where economic development has already taken place.”
In other words, there are vast opportunities in the Arab world for the Arab refugees to build new lives, but Arab governments have so far debarred refugees from these opportunities.
-from Abba Eban’s 1957 book entitled, “Voice of Israel”em>