Palestinians Need to Compromise

By Ray Hanania
December 4, 2003

In the early days of the Palestinian Diaspora, every event would feature the playing of an Arabian song called "ala del Ouna," which loosely translated refers to an impassioned nostalgia for one's homeland.

It brought tears to the eyes of Palestinians, no matter their religion or politics. Back then, the longing to return to the homeland was a fresh, hopeful dream, an expression of resoluteness in the face of conflict with Israel.

But the days of defeating Israel and the dream of re-establishing a pre-1948 Palestine is no longer real. With this reality in mind, Palestinian and Israeli leaders this week unveiled the Geneva Accord - which would, for the first time, formally address the need to compromise on the right of return.

Rather than adapt, however, many Palestinians are blinded by the rhetoric of a small, vocal group of Palestinians who, from their luxury in America, Europe and even the Middle East, continue to argue rejection. These "coffee shop commandos" are good at telling the refugees that they must continue the struggle against Israel and Zionism, while screaming down Palestinian voices of reason. They are willing to fight to the last Palestinian. Not themselves, other Palestinians.

They exploit emotions and send others to sacrifice their lives, killing civilians on both sides. And for what? Revenge? Vengeance? Goals that contradict their own religious beliefs.

Members of this small segment of the Palestinian Diaspora manage a bureaucracy that sustains their luxury and reason for being by rejecting peace and compromise and continuing the conflict. Donations and grants fund their activities and travels. They enjoy the celebrity of being "voices" for the downtrodden, even though the downtrodden they represent are not permitted to express their own will.

Recent polls show the majority of Palestinian refugees accept that they will not return to their former lands and are willing to be compensated or move to new lands and homes in a Palestinian state. But the rejectionists live in a "virtual Palestine" where they suffer and struggle for a money-making dream, something mirrored on the Israeli side, too.

If the conflict were ever resolved, these conflict bureaucrats would be out of jobs in an existence without meaning. That fear fuels their strident voices against compromise and has driven the Palestine-Israel debate for 58 years. It is time for that to change.

The Palestinians' "right of return" is really a principle. Their homes no longer exist. Their lands are changed. Where will they return to?

The alternative is one of hope for a future where the Palestinian refugees can rebuild their lives, restore their culture and move from revolution to renaissance.

Compromise means Israel has an obligation, too. Israel must acknowledge its role in the refugee problem and stop blaming others. It means compensating the Palestinian refugees for lost property with the same vigor of Jews seeking compensation and a restoration of dignity from governments and businesses that cooperated with the Nazis during World War II. It also means the Arab world must compensate Jews who left Arab countries to immigrate to Israel. Arguing about whether any of these Jewish or Palestinian refugees were forced to leave or fled is irrelevant.

Once the conflict is resolved, the voices of rejection will disappear on both sides. Palestinian refugees will be able to tend to their olive groves and lands in a new Palestine state. Real leaders will arise to lift Palestinians from tragedy and take them to new heights.

As an unofficial compromise reached by former Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators, the Geneva Accord offers promise, despite the rising voices of rejection from the "coffee shop commandos" of the bureaucracies of conflict that exist on both sides.

It is not a final agreement, but the basis for negotiations to resume. It offers a realistic vision that is achievable. It compels Palestinians and Israelis to force their governments to end the violence and return to the peace table.

It defines in general terms the realization of a dream for Palestinians and Israelis that results in two states existing side by side, roughly on the basis of the 1967 "green line" with equal land-for-land swaps where border changes may be mandated. Palestine and Israel will share Jerusalem. Neither people must surrender its opinions or histories.

But it does mean that Palestinians and Israelis must turn away from the hate of the past that drives this conflict and embrace a new vision of the future where both can begin the process of rebuilding their dreams in coexistence and peace.

As a Palestinian, I believe it is time to allow the Palestinians to return to an achievable Palestinian state and real lives, rather than force them to remain in their suffering and an unachievable dream.

Ray Hanania, the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, is an author and syndicated columnist based in Chicago.