Related Resources

In the 1990s, the US government was concerned with property restitution, compensation, reparations, and return of artifacts to indigenous peoples from whom they were taken. This trend was highlighted by the significant American role in the drafting of the 1995 Dayton Accords, an agreement that mandated compensation for lost property and return of refugees to their homes in the Balkans. Despite international attention and consensus (including Israel) that Palestinian refugees must be compensated in some way for land lost in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the issue is still unresolved after more than 50 years. Dr. Fischbach identified several elements that shed light on the failure of peace efforts thus far.

Property. First, there is wide disagreement on the amount and type of property abandoned by refugees. The Palestinians claimed that 18-19 million dunums of land were confiscated from refugees, while the Israelis put the figure at 3-4 million dunums. According to UNCCP records, somewhere between 6-8 million dunums, excluding the district of Beersheba, belonged to refugees. Part of the reason for the discrepancy lies in the concept of property itself. According to the Israeli government, some of the refugees’ abandoned land reverted to the state, including shared areas such as roads and public spaces. According to Ottoman traditions, land that belonged to Palestinians included community-controlled lands, public roads and other Palestinian government lands, and so is claimed in the overall figure of lost property.

Compensation. The historical record shows that compensation and restitution is inextricably linked to the question of right of return or permanent settlement outside Israel's borders. In the minds of most parties, including the US government, the question of refugees accepting restitution is tantamount to the admission that they will not return. This attitude helps explain why refugees have always had a hostile response to the question of accepting compensation.

Counter-claims. Another complicating factor in resolving Palestinian property claims is the linkage with Israeli counter-claims for compensation for damages to Israel by Arab government actions, as well as for Jews displaced by Iraqi and other Arab governments. As early as 1948, the Israeli government suggested the amount of restitution to Palestinian refugees be reduced by the amount of property and economic losses to Israel from the Arab boycott and the blockade of the Suez Canal. Palestinians have rejected demands to reduce the amount of compensation, claiming that these issues should be taken up with individual Arab governments responsible for Israeli damages.

Payment. If Israel cannot afford the monetary compensation to Palestinian refugees, who will pay? Fischbach suggested the United States or the international community. In 1949 numerous records acknowledged the possibility of Israeli abnegation, and a CIA document indicated that the compensation would be a small price to pay to resolve this issue.

International involvement. World communities, especially the United Nations, have so far been unable to make progress in resolving the Palestinian property question. Ideas for solutions have contributed to the impasse over the course of the years since 1948, including the idea of land for peace, which further removed from consideration the concept of direct compensation or return. Because of the longevity and complexity of the issue, the international peace process is now predicated on property losses of June 5, 1967 rather than the losses of the1948 refugees.

Fischbach's book poses a number of serious questions about the role of superpowers in the conflict, as well as tactics that the parties continue to pursue. He concludes that a gradual, step-by-step approach to peace will not work. All the refugee issues are connected and must be approached with creativity and determination. The refugees' continuing exile serves only to engender greater bitterness and obstinacy on both sides, which causes the impasse to persist.