A refugee through the eyes of a refugee

The mandate ended for the occupation to begin. Great Britain felt powerless in Palestine, so it was decided that the «mission is completed». On October 29, 1947 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181. The resolution recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, an Arab one and a Jewish one, and placed Jerusalem under a Special International Regime, thus disregarding the right of Palestinians to self-determination, a right considered to be one of the peremptory norms in international law, inalienable and permanent in time.

After Britain’s withdrawal and the entry of Zionist gangs, the lives of Palestinians changed. They were no longer mere citizens. In the diaspora, they got a new name: «refugees» in neighboring countries.

Before Palestinian Refugees

The displacement of Palestinians did not bring forth the concept of «asylum». The right of asylum is one of the oldest attributes of civilization. This theory is reinforced by discovered texts dating back to 3,500 B.C.

During the early centuries of the Christian era, the concept of «asylum» began to expand. In the 4th century A.D. churches were filled with refugees seeking refuge from the injustices they were subjected to by the Roman Empire. That case spurred Christian clergy to work on a «Christian asylum law».

From the late 19th century to the 1930s,Europe saw the movement of several huge asylum waves of German and Austrian Jews to Palestine. Three years after the Nakba, the 1951 Refugee Convention was adopted. A refugee was defined as «A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."

The specificity of Palestine refugees

Given the international focus on reintegrating refugees, the international community chose to exclude Palestinian refugees from the convention and from the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR. It wished to grant special consideration for Palestinian refugees, so it gave them a special definition.

The UN granted Resolution 194 (the right of return and compensation) to Palestinian refugees. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) did not define the Palestinian refugee in purely legal terms. However, with the aim of providing assistance and relief for Palestinians who were expelled from their homes, it had to designate the refugees that the UNRWA would provide its services to. Therefore, the UNRWA developed several definitions that were altered in the course of developments on the ground.

The UNRWA defines Palestine refugees as «persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict».

After

Palestinians are no longer the only «Arab refugees». The scourge of wars that the Arab countries have been blighted with for a time has made this single cause branch out to become multiple causes and turn the citizens of those countries into refugees, despite the specificity of the origins of the Palestinian asylum status resulting from an act of occupation act not internal wars, as is the case in many countries in the Arab world.

Lebanon is a special case. There are two blocs on its land outside its «original» fabric: one Palestinian and the other Syrian. The former has features that it acquired from the features of the original cause. The latter has features that it acquired as a result of the relations that brought the two peoples together. It is easy to say that there is fusion between the two blocs given their backgrounds: war. But delving a little into their depths brings the problems to the surface.

What came out of the Syrian crisis brings about the question: how does a refugee view another refugee?

In Lebanon, Syrian refugees went for two options. The first option was residing inside refugee camps provided by the UNHCR. The second one was living in rented houses. There are many possibilities in the latter option. One of them is Palestinian refugee camps. The camps have huge numbers of Syrian refugees. The Palestinians have welcomed the refugees. In camps, things are not always a matter of «charity». Many Palestinians see the Syrians as a source of income. As result of the terrible economic situation they live in, many Palestinians inside camps have divided their already small houses into sections and lease them to refugees. Due to the high demand, rent prices have gone through the roof. In the Bourj el-Barajneh camp, the rent for a «pseudo-apartment» reached around USD 400 a month (equivalent to the average rent price of a three-room apartment in a middle class area). The issue goes beyond «economic benefit» to move into the territory of identity.

The Palestinian has long considered himself the number one victim in the Arab world (his alternative identity). Today, this no longer holds true. Or at least he is no longer seen as a priority. The Syrian activist in Lebanon Hamed Saffour sums up the matter. He explains how the «Syrian crisis overshadowed the Palestinian cause». The marginalization of the Palestinian cause has brought forth anger, In addition any comparison between the Palestinian cause and the Syrian crisis is out of place and unjust. This is naturally reflected on the refugees, their rhetoric and practices.

The Palestinian refugee Usama Qais does not deny the consequences of the «Syrian crisis» that have cast a shadow over the «Palestine refugee», attributing this to the fact that «the Palestinian is originally denied the right to work and other additional rights». But he refuses to generalize manifestations of negative reactions that may come from Palestinian refugees towards the Syrians and deems them to be purely isolated reactions and irresponsible acts. Saffour agrees with this view, noting the possibility of «the existence of discriminatory practices on the part of a very small number of Palestinians who are suffering a difficult economic situation».

«Solidarity is the main thing we feel and extend to our Syrian brothers, because they are our companions in tragedy,» says Qais.

«In Palestine, it’s the occupation. In Syria, the revolution has turned into a civil war. There is no place for comparisons between the Palestinian cause and the Syrian crisis.» In spite of this conviction, Qais reproaches the Syrians for leaving their land. «How did they accept to leave their land in Syria? Why didn’t they try to stay there?» Qais goes back in his memories and nostalgia. «These are the words with which we reproach our ancestors.»

There is a clear difference between the Palestinian refugees and those of other nationalities. The UNRWA ensures for Palestinians «the right of return and compensation»while the UNHCR undertakes to provide for the other refugees an «alternative homeland». For Saffour, asylum is a concept subject to change, and every case adds another dimension to it. His view that «the Syrian refugee experience has changed the concept of asylum» supports that theory.

Qais too goes beyond the «concept founded by the United Nations». He considers that «the differentiation that governments make obscures the focus of the refugee on his core issues, such as the occupation». In Qais’ words there is an allusion to the integrity of the concept in its «current UN» form. In his opinion too only the size of the catastrophe is what gives an additional media dimension.

In his argument, Saffour tries to steer the debate from «a refugee against a refugee» course to «a refugee against the host state» one. Lebanon is not unfortunately an exemplary «host state». Saffour believes that the problem is the «absence of an integration foundation in Lebanon (between the refugees and the state, and its impacts on the refugees among themselves). He gives the example of Syria. «In Syria, there was more of that foundation, the refugee was treated just like Syrian citizens.»

Saffour justifies «the absence of an integration foundation» with the «pervasive fixationon resettlement and which gets the upper hand over the humanitarian factor».

Qais too leans towards the argument of «refugees vs state». In his view, refugees are equal before «the discriminatory rhetoric on the part of some Lebanese under the slogan that refugees are the ruin of the country», saying mockingly: «As if the situation was better before the Syrian crisis.»

Although he acknowledges that the crisis have strengthened «empathy for the other», Saffour falls into the trap of drawing comparisons again. He considers that «discrimination against the Syrian refugee is much greater than that towards the Palestinians, seeing that there are 52 municipalities that have imposed a curfew based on nationality.» However, he regrets «the backlash and the demonization by Syrian intellectuals of the Lebanese».

Adrift between Oslo and Geneva

Qais says with a lump in his throat: «After Oslo, everything changed. The agreements absented me as a refugee because it recognized the occupant and dropped his occupant status. As a result, it is only natural that I would feel that I have lost as a refugee my right to return to my village in Palestine (Nahaf).» He puts the responsibility on those subjugating the interests of the Palestinian people as a «corrupt» bunch playing with and controlling our fate. Qais believes that there are many similarities between Oslo and the conferences being held in Geneva and the world for the Syrian refugees, as Geneva did not fulfill the aspirations of the Syrian people overall.

Saffour avoids talking about this subject directly but his views do not deviate much from Qais’s. In his opinion: «The concept of asylum is getting uglier as corruption and injustice increase...»

So, we are facing a terrible reality that forebodes of worse things to come. A state of lack of knowledge of how to approach with matters relating to refugee and dealing with them in a healthy and correct political and legal form. A terrible economic situation experienced by the refugees. Oppressive laws that support the deteriorating economic situation. Huge pressure on Lebanon. The impact of these circumstances on the different aspects of the refugees’ lives: social, psychological, coexistence, fusion, among one another and between them and the Lebanese. Near inexistent international support.

What is happening between the «two poles of asylum» is a social state reinforced by local and international laws. A social state that requires an in-depth study of all its aspects, otherwise the international community is before moral failure, primarily, with regard to the refugees. To have reached a state of anger of a refugee upon seeing an extra hunk of bread with a refugee of another nationality signals a catastrophe, an out-and out catastrophe.