The Right to Visit Instead of the Right of Return

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Abu Mazen has introduced a new term of struggle into the Palestinian lexicon of struggle: the right to visit. A long time has passed since the term “right of return” first appeared, and renewal is needed so that the Palestinian people can keep fully in step with the march of concessions that align with the will of Israel and the Western states. The right of return is no longer valid; events and developments affecting the Palestinian cause have overtaken it, and the right to visit has now become the fitting term.

So that no injustice is done to Abbas, we must be clear about the fact that the right of return has already been abolished, in practice and in law. The Palestinian National Council relinquished the right of return in 1988, when it recognized Israel and Security Council Resolution 242. Of course, the Council’s decision was illegitimate, because it contradicted the National Charter in force at the time, and the members of the Council who voted in flagrant violation of the Charter’s provisions ought, in principle, to be put on trial. But the cup has long since been broken on the Palestinian scene, and the members of the Palestinian National Council are no different from the members of the Arab legislative councils.

Recognizing Israel means that the PLO, and whatever councils and authorities emerge from it, have no right to interfere in Israel’s internal affairs, and cannot demand of it, as a recognized state, that it change its demographic composition or accept other residents who have no right, under Israeli law, to hold citizenship. The PLO has legally acknowledged Israel’s existence, and in doing so has acknowledged the international laws that safeguard its rights as a member of the United Nations.

…it did not explicitly mention the Palestinian refugees. For this reason Israel said that the Jews in Arab states are refugees who must return to their homeland, which is Israel, while the Arabs in the Holy Land are refugees who must return to their homelands in the Arab countries.

The Security Council resolution superseded Resolution 194, issued by the UN General Assembly — itself, in any case, a feeble resolution, since it merely asks Israel to permit the Palestinians to return “at the earliest possible date.” That earliest possible date, as we can see, has not yet arrived.

Abbas is not the first to have trampled on the right of return. The Palestinian leadership relinquished the right of return long ago, and everything the people used to hear about clinging to the right of return and the constants was nothing but slogans for local consumption, ones that never made Israel tremble. Beyond that, our conduct toward Israel — normalization, security coordination, and throwing ourselves into its embrace — constitutes glaring proof that we do not actually want the right of return. We must stop lying to ourselves.

As for the right to visit, there are those who take trips to occupied Palestine of ‘48, but the overwhelming majority of them do not go to see their villages or their remains, or to become acquainted with their own lands; rather, they go mostly to visit Zionist tourist attractions and to shop. For this reason, it is essential that we ask Israel to sell us photographs and video footage of our houses, our villages, and our property, and we will think about what to do with them. But it is important that it keep its bars and brothels in Netanya and Tel Aviv open, so that we may violate their honor and drag their dignity through disgrace.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “حق الرؤية بدل حق العودة” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.