Donor Countries: Re-settle the Refugees, Don’t Rebuild Camp
Dr. Joseph Hitti
September 13, 2007
September 11, 2007
PM Siniora of Lebanon is again begging foreign countries for funds to rebuild the Nahr Al-Bared Palestinian Camp that was razed by 3 months of fighting between the Lebanese Army and the Fatah Al-Islam Sunni fundamentalist terrorist group. Siniora is asking $55 million for immediate relief care for the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugees and $382 million for rebuilding the camp and the surrounding communities.
Rebuilding the camp with all this money is a huge mistake for a number of reasons. First, there is a high likelihood that this money will be pilfered and stolen under Lebanon’s corrupt government and administration, because all similar previous initiatives in Lebanon have ended up fattening the pockets of people like Walid Jumblatt (for the displaced Christians of the Shouf) and Nabih Berri and Hassan Nasrallah (for the displaced Shiites of the South). PM Siniora is no stranger to these activities since he has been in government in various capacities for the past 20 years. He has begged and borrowed money before (Paris I, II, and III donor conferences) but this money never makes it to its destination and the country’s economy remains in shambles.
Second, Lebanon is the country with the highest population density in the Arab world and has the highest density of Palestinian refugees among all other Arab countries. It is not fair that Lebanon bears the burden of being the only open war front with Israel and to also be saddled with the largest refugee population. Lebanon cannot sustain the presence of a refugee population that makes up 20% of its total population without this leading the country to wars and conflicts. In fact, Nahr Al-Bared is only the last of a series of camps that the Lebanese razed to the ground to rid themselves of radical armed militias and groups hiding in the camps: During the Lebanese War of 1975 – 1990, the camps of Tal Al-Zaatar, Jisr Al-Basha, Dbayyeh, Qarantina, and others were attacked by Lebanese army and by both Christian and Moslem Lebanese militias, their populations evicted and/or massacred, and none of these camps was ever rebuilt.
Third, the present time is an opportunity for Lebanon to seriously lobby its Arab “brothers”, who care very much for the destitution and poverty of the Palestinian refugees in the camps in Lebanon, to encourage those Arab countries to agree to re-settle these refugees inside their own borders, each in proportion to its means and size. For instance, wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, and others whose populations are also Sunni like the Palestinians and whose economies badly need a skilled workforce that speaks Arabic, can much more easily absorb and re-settle the Palestinian refugees of Lebanon under more humane conditions than Lebanon has been able to. This re-settlement in other Arab countries does not diminish the Right of Return of the refugees, which remains to be negotiated between the Palestinian Authority and Israel; it just makes their waiting more humane and sustainable. Which means, it would be as temporary as their stay in Lebanon is. Since these refugees have been waiting close to 60 years for a solution to their predicament, they might as well be waiting in more comfortable and more humane conditions that the overcrowded camps of Lebanon.
Fourth, rebuilding the Nahr Al-Bared Camp makes PM Siniora an accomplice with the Israeli position of denying the Right of return to the Palestinians displaced in the 1948 war with Israel. It sends a signal that the Lebanese are intent on permanently re-settling the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, while re-settling them in Saudi Arabia, for example, sends a message to the world that neither their residence in Lebanon nor in Saudi Arabia is permanent. PM Siniora should not do Israel’s bidding in this matter. Israel claims that a return of the refugees would alter the demographic constitution to the disadvantage of its Jewish majority. But Lebanon too has a much more delicate demographic balance to preserve than Israel, and therefore Lebanon should not be burdened indefinitely with the refugees. It should be noted that Siniora is Sunni, and the ascendancy of the Shiites of Lebanon is relegating Lebanon’s Sunnis to third position behind the Shiites and the Christians. This is raising the suspicion that the US support for Siniora is intended as a quid pro quo in which a resettlement of the Sunni Palestinian refugees in Lebanon enhances the demographic advantage of Lebanon’s Sunnis, while the US lifts the threat of the Right of Return off the back of its protégé Israel. So Siniora has an opportunity now to prove that this is not the case by not rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared.
At his press conference yesterday in which he launched his new begging campaign, Siniora claimed that “not rebuilding the camp would only exacerbate the threat posed by groups such as Fatah al-Islam… We cannot risk chaos and violence in any of Lebanon's 11 other camps. If we fail to rebuild, it will not only be tragic, but the dangers will be limitless. This was a wake-up call.” This is one big lie that Siniora is propagating. By not rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared, Siniora would indeed be sending a message to the Palestinians that if they do engage in violence, their fate will be like Nahr Al-Bared. And by the same token, rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared is telling the Palestinians of the other camps that they will be rewarded with a brand new camp if they engage in violence against the Lebanese.
So the message from the Lebanese people – not from Prime Beggar Siniora – to countries like the US, Italy, Norway, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Kuwait, Spain and Egypt is: Do not pay for rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared. Instead, offer temporary re-settlement visas to those of the refugees who wish for more decent lives, for work permits and passports. The Lebanese government of PM Siniora houses the Palestinians but denies them the right to build, to work, to go to Lebanese schools, etc. The Palestinians in Lebanon have suffered unprecedented discrimination by the Lebanese government over the decades; so why should these countries now fund a resumption of that discrimination against the Nahr Al-Bared residents?
Furthermore, those countries and the UN should use their clout with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to negotiate allowing the refugees to return to the West Bank and Gaza where there are many others refugee camps. At least the West Bank and Gaza constitute Palestine and moving the refugees to them would bring these people back into their country, much closer to the homes and villages they left in 1948. They would be entitled to their own national identity and would be citizens of the future sovereign State of Palestine which everyone say they support.
Lebanon has enough problems of its own to have to deal with the problems of other peoples and countries in the neighborhood. Responsibility for the Palestinian refugee tragedy is not Lebanon’s; for historical reasons reaching back to the British mandate over Palestine in the early 20th century, the Palestinian refugee tragedy is the responsibility of the West as well as the Arab world. They – and not Lebanon – should assume the burden of ensuring a decent life for the refugees, and re-settling them outside of Lebanon is a good first step towards a settlement of their final status.
PM Siniora of Lebanon is again begging foreign countries for funds to rebuild the Nahr Al-Bared Palestinian Camp that was razed by 3 months of fighting between the Lebanese Army and the Fatah Al-Islam Sunni fundamentalist terrorist group. Siniora is asking $55 million for immediate relief care for the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugees and $382 million for rebuilding the camp and the surrounding communities.
Rebuilding the camp with all this money is a huge mistake for a number of reasons. First, there is a high likelihood that this money will be pilfered and stolen under Lebanon’s corrupt government and administration, because all similar previous initiatives in Lebanon have ended up fattening the pockets of people like Walid Jumblatt (for the displaced Christians of the Shouf) and Nabih Berri and Hassan Nasrallah (for the displaced Shiites of the South). PM Siniora is no stranger to these activities since he has been in government in various capacities for the past 20 years. He has begged and borrowed money before (Paris I, II, and III donor conferences) but this money never makes it to its destination and the country’s economy remains in shambles.
Second, Lebanon is the country with the highest population density in the Arab world and has the highest density of Palestinian refugees among all other Arab countries. It is not fair that Lebanon bears the burden of being the only open war front with Israel and to also be saddled with the largest refugee population. Lebanon cannot sustain the presence of a refugee population that makes up 20% of its total population without this leading the country to wars and conflicts. In fact, Nahr Al-Bared is only the last of a series of camps that the Lebanese razed to the ground to rid themselves of radical armed militias and groups hiding in the camps: During the Lebanese War of 1975 – 1990, the camps of Tal Al-Zaatar, Jisr Al-Basha, Dbayyeh, Qarantina, and others were attacked by Lebanese army and by both Christian and Moslem Lebanese militias, their populations evicted and/or massacred, and none of these camps was ever rebuilt.
Third, the present time is an opportunity for Lebanon to seriously lobby its Arab “brothers”, who care very much for the destitution and poverty of the Palestinian refugees in the camps in Lebanon, to encourage those Arab countries to agree to re-settle these refugees inside their own borders, each in proportion to its means and size. For instance, wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, and others whose populations are also Sunni like the Palestinians and whose economies badly need a skilled workforce that speaks Arabic, can much more easily absorb and re-settle the Palestinian refugees of Lebanon under more humane conditions than Lebanon has been able to. This re-settlement in other Arab countries does not diminish the Right of Return of the refugees, which remains to be negotiated between the Palestinian Authority and Israel; it just makes their waiting more humane and sustainable. Which means, it would be as temporary as their stay in Lebanon is. Since these refugees have been waiting close to 60 years for a solution to their predicament, they might as well be waiting in more comfortable and more humane conditions that the overcrowded camps of Lebanon.
Fourth, rebuilding the Nahr Al-Bared Camp makes PM Siniora an accomplice with the Israeli position of denying the Right of return to the Palestinians displaced in the 1948 war with Israel. It sends a signal that the Lebanese are intent on permanently re-settling the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, while re-settling them in Saudi Arabia, for example, sends a message to the world that neither their residence in Lebanon nor in Saudi Arabia is permanent. PM Siniora should not do Israel’s bidding in this matter. Israel claims that a return of the refugees would alter the demographic constitution to the disadvantage of its Jewish majority. But Lebanon too has a much more delicate demographic balance to preserve than Israel, and therefore Lebanon should not be burdened indefinitely with the refugees. It should be noted that Siniora is Sunni, and the ascendancy of the Shiites of Lebanon is relegating Lebanon’s Sunnis to third position behind the Shiites and the Christians. This is raising the suspicion that the US support for Siniora is intended as a quid pro quo in which a resettlement of the Sunni Palestinian refugees in Lebanon enhances the demographic advantage of Lebanon’s Sunnis, while the US lifts the threat of the Right of Return off the back of its protégé Israel. So Siniora has an opportunity now to prove that this is not the case by not rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared.
At his press conference yesterday in which he launched his new begging campaign, Siniora claimed that “not rebuilding the camp would only exacerbate the threat posed by groups such as Fatah al-Islam… We cannot risk chaos and violence in any of Lebanon's 11 other camps. If we fail to rebuild, it will not only be tragic, but the dangers will be limitless. This was a wake-up call.” This is one big lie that Siniora is propagating. By not rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared, Siniora would indeed be sending a message to the Palestinians that if they do engage in violence, their fate will be like Nahr Al-Bared. And by the same token, rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared is telling the Palestinians of the other camps that they will be rewarded with a brand new camp if they engage in violence against the Lebanese.
So the message from the Lebanese people – not from Prime Beggar Siniora – to countries like the US, Italy, Norway, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Kuwait, Spain and Egypt is: Do not pay for rebuilding Nahr Al-Bared. Instead, offer temporary re-settlement visas to those of the refugees who wish for more decent lives, for work permits and passports. The Lebanese government of PM Siniora houses the Palestinians but denies them the right to build, to work, to go to Lebanese schools, etc. The Palestinians in Lebanon have suffered unprecedented discrimination by the Lebanese government over the decades; so why should these countries now fund a resumption of that discrimination against the Nahr Al-Bared residents?
Furthermore, those countries and the UN should use their clout with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to negotiate allowing the refugees to return to the West Bank and Gaza where there are many others refugee camps. At least the West Bank and Gaza constitute Palestine and moving the refugees to them would bring these people back into their country, much closer to the homes and villages they left in 1948. They would be entitled to their own national identity and would be citizens of the future sovereign State of Palestine which everyone say they support.
Lebanon has enough problems of its own to have to deal with the problems of other peoples and countries in the neighborhood. Responsibility for the Palestinian refugee tragedy is not Lebanon’s; for historical reasons reaching back to the British mandate over Palestine in the early 20th century, the Palestinian refugee tragedy is the responsibility of the West as well as the Arab world. They – and not Lebanon – should assume the burden of ensuring a decent life for the refugees, and re-settling them outside of Lebanon is a good first step towards a settlement of their final status.
Print
Email
