The Palestinian Community in Britain: Features of Exile and Attitudes Toward the Right of Return
By Majed Al-Zeer- Part1
Preface
The Palestinian refugee problem has been at the core of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. All the parties involved in the issue are now convinced that they cannot solve the conflict without tackling the refugee problem. These parties have somehow sponsored the idea that Palestinian refugees could be convinced to stay and settle far from their home of origin. This is based on assumptions; one such is that some of the Palestinians have been settled well in countries of exile, especially those of Europe.
The aims and objectives of this study are to test the validity of the arguments that the Palestinian community in the UK as part of the Palestinians in Europe and exile might have no interest in return to the exact village and home which they or their fathers or grandfathers were expelled from and that they may abandon their right to Palestine. It is an examination of how the Palestinians in UK have been portrayed in previous studies, with regard to their thinking of home and their right of return. This essay will analyse the type of factors that affect the Palestinians' attachment to their home of origin. It is also a trial to observe the indicators that might reflect the Palestinian attitude toward the right of return.
Acknowledgments
This study is the product of an MA dissertation submitted to the University Of East London in 2004. I would like to thank Mr. Phil Marfleet for his help and supervision, which I found extremely useful throughout the preparation of this work. I must equally thank my colleague Mr. Mounir Daymi for introducing me to the Refugee program and for his encouragement since the commencement of this work. My special thanks go to my closest friend and wife, Mariam Zughbeih, for her endless patient support. The load on her shoulders was at times awesome - looking after me and four children. Thank you so much Mariam.
Table of Contents
Introduction:
Chapter 1
Research Context
The Repatriation of Refugees
The official position
Shaping the attitude of refugees: towards the return to country of origin
The Palestinian Refugees Issue
The Palestinian specificity
The Israeli attitude towards Palestinians
The current situations
Chapter 2
Review of literatures and methodology
Critical review of the available literature
Methodology
Ethical issues and practical challenges
Chapter 3
The Palestinian Community in the UK
Historic overview
Categories
The Palestinian organizations in Britain
Findings
Social life
The Palestinian Identity
Where is home?
The Impact of The pro-Palestine organized: campaign on the Palestinian community
Racism in Britain
The current situation in Palestine and the Impact of Intifada (The Palestinian uprising)
The religion factor:
War against terrorism:
Relation with Arab community:
Al-Jazeera satellite channel
The influence of internet
War in Iraq
The British tradition
The Jewish community in Britain
The right of return
Analysis of the results
Conclusion
References
Introduction
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of the most contentious issues in modern international relations. It is the foremost international issue, which has attracted the attention of politicians, media, academics, and the public for the past six decades. Hence it is one of the longest yet unresolved conflicts of modern times . There are many factors that have contributed to the complexity of this problem. Firstly, it was the result of the wholesale expulsion of almost an entire nation, which was replaced by another (Palestinians by Jews) . For the Jews travel to Palestine has been facilitated so as to settle there on a permanent basis, a process that has been legalised in the Israeli Law of Return [1950]. Israel regards itself as a state exclusively for Jews, inside that part of Palestine in the aftermath of the events of 1948 . Secondly, far from being blameless, the UN is legally responsible for creating the problem of the Palestinian refugees after it issued Resolution 181 which gave more than half of Palestine (57%) to the Jewish population . Finally, the State of Israel is the recipient of continuous unlimited support from the USA and Western countries. This granted in the form of political, economic, legal, military, social and moral assistance .
The Palestinian refugee problem is widely seen as the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. All official parties who are involved (the Palestinians, Israelis, Arab countries including those which host refugees, Americans, Europeans, the United Nations (UN) and it's bodies) have acknowledged that there will be no peace and settlement in the region without solving the refugee problem. That does not mean that they all hold the same vision in achieving a solution or agree on the fine details of the solution itself .
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has been keen since it was established to facilitate the return of refugees everywhere to their homes from which they were expelled. Repatriation is recognized as essential for the attainment of the best solution to the problem of refugees everywhere. That has been its policy within the constitution of offering protection to refugees .
This was not with the case with the Palestinians, who have been dealt with by another body established exclusively for them, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Its mandate is limited to humanitarian assistance .
There are several definitions of exile according to social scientists, however they are all agreed that it depends on the person himself who defines home. That is why some of them have argued: "Home is where you make it..." In the case of refugees, the home of origin is often seen as part of the psychology of the refugees. The attachment to a certain geography and culture is something essential and cannot be avoided whether the refugee intends it or a collection of external causes affected this feeling to be rooted to that place, which may be other than the place of current living .
The opinion of refugees with regard to return to their homes of origin has been affected by different factors such as the situation at the home of origin, treatment from the host countries, their economic situation and their political involvement. The attitude of refusing to accept refugees has become one of the main issues that has dominated the political debate in Europe in recent decades, and could be seen one of the main factors that has led to the feeling of being alien by refugees. This means they are somewhat isolated and their existence in exile is temporary. Thus, the idea of returning home is always present. Notwithstanding, this argument has been invalidated by some scholars who have attempted to support their views with field studies. Their conclusion was that repatriation is a myth .
This book seeks to test the validity of the arguments that the Palestinian community in the UK as part of the Palestinians in Europe and exile might have no interest in repatriation to the exact homes and villages from which they or their fathers or grandfathers were expelled. There is even the view in some quarters that they may abandon their right to Palestine. It is an examination of how the Palestinians in the UK have been depicted in previous studies, with regard to their thinking of home and their right of return. This study will analyse the factors that affect the Palestinians' profound attachment to their homes of origin. It is also an appraisal of the indicators that might reflect Palestinian attitudes toward the right of return. It is at the same time, an exploration of the similarities and differences of Palestinian exile in the UK with the experiences of other exile communities.
Chapter 1
Context of Study
There are at present about 50 wars of varying intensity raging around the world . As a consequence, about 50 million people world-wide might be considered legitimate victims of forced migrations . According to an official UNHCR report issued in January 2004 about 17,093,400 of these were being cared for by the organization.
These could be classified as asylum seekers, refugees and others of concern to UNHCR . The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as "a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country..."
Repatriation to the country of origin has been seen to be the most effective and durable of solutions according to the collective point of views of national or international bodies involved in offering help or assistance to refugees . The UNHCR constitution states that: "Voluntary repatriation is the preferred long-term solution for the majority of refugees" . There were around 12 million refugees who were repatriated to their homes of origin during the last decade of the 20th century. Some of them were returned through organized schemes and others on a purely voluntary individual basis .
In this regard, the UNHCR has affirmed that: "the well-established international principles [decree] that refugee repatriation should take place on a "wholly voluntary basis" and in "conditions of safety and dignity"". It has also admitted that a large proportion of the world's recent returnees have been repatriated under some form of duress, the latter committed or exercised by host governments, host communities or other actors according to UNHCR sources .
The 1980 and 1985 the UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusions, 18 (XXXI) and 40 (XXXVI) respectively, ruled that "the repatriation of refugees should only take place at their freely expressed wish; the voluntary and individual character of repatriation of refugees and the need for it to be carried out under conditions of absolute safety, preferably to the place of residence of the refugee in his country of origin, should always be respected"
As an example, the total number of refugees and displaced persons who returned to their homes within Bosnia and Herzegovina were 1,000,473; 440,147 of them returned from abroad, while others (560,326) were displaced persons . The UNHCR has been involved in other cases of repatriation in various parts of the world, such as Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopian, Kenya, Cambodia, Thailand, Mozambique and East Timor. The 3117 total matches of the word "Repatriation" in a search of the official website of UNHCR may reflect the seriousness and determination of the international agency to implement its strategy with regard to solving the refugee problem through facilitating the return to home of origin, as the core of that solution.
Shaping the attitude of refugees towards the return to country of origin
Graham and Khosravi have defined "exile" as: "to be deprived of the land and the temporal rhythms of life appropriate to it. To live in exile is to live as an alien..."
In spite of the massive number of people in exile, the national identity which keeps people attached to their original culture and specific geography has been seen as a natural feature of humanity as Malki argued throughout his valuable study on the uprooting of people and national identity among refugees .
There is more than one definition to home. Nikos Papastergiadis explains: "the ideal home is not just a house which offers shelter.... Apart from this physical protection and market value, a home is a place where personal social meaning are grounded" .
Graham and Khosravi argued that home is where you make it. They described the reconstruction of home by the Iranian exile in Sweden. They said: "This re-construction of home occurs not only by sight and hearing but also through senses of smell, taste and touch" .
Warner has defined home as: 'The concept of home and community in the country of origin is most frequently related to two elements. First, there is the association of the refugees of those who are similar. A community in this sense is a homogenous group. Second, there is the association of this group to a specific place...what Connolly refers to as 'politics of place' and Gardels to as 'a civilization of the soil" .
Martin and Mohanty as feminist scholars criticised the cosy image of home by arguing: "Home was an illusion of coherence and safety based on the exclusion of specific histories of oppression and resistance, the repression of differences even within oneself" .
Sir John Simpson was quoted in 1939 on the European refugee problem: "The hope of return, shared by hosts and refugee alike, is a fundamental element in a refugee situation... it has conditioned the political, humanitarian and educational activities of the refugees themselves. It has created that refugee mentality which has tended to perpetuate the refugee problem and to create some of its chief elements, but at the same time, has paradoxically simplified the problem. It has preserved among the refugees a self-respect and has conferred on them a capacity to endure almost intolerable conditions, without which they might have become a mass human wreckage for the redemption of which no plans could have been made" .
Although there is no going back to the situations of the past, we cannot isolate the present from the past or expect the future not to be connected to the events of the present and the past as well. It is a continuous process. The past has its creative part in shaping the present and the vision of its people including the refugees in the exile .
There are several other factors that might influence the return to home of origin from the point of view of the different communities in exile such as economic conditions and political involvement in the exile .
On the other hand, the kind of life a person had before leaving his country of origin may determine whether the refugee chooses to return to his home or not. Eventually the dramatic change in the home in such a way that it may no longer exist or has been moved, might play a vital role in shaping the opinion of the refugees with regard to the "return" .
The ability of the refugees to integrate in exile and the treatment the refugees may receive from the country of exile both officially and on a public level might substantially determine whether the refugee feels alienated and thus desires to return. For example, one of the political strategies which Margaret Thatcher adopted to win the general election in 1979 in Britain was to use the immigration issue to mobilise the fear of being 'swamped by people of a different culture.' Refugees in Britain have been consequently seen as a threat to cultural and social unity in recent decades .
There is a difference in the way of thinking with regard to repatriation between the political or economic exile. The first one is more attached to the principle than the second. That does not mean the idea of return no longer exists in the case of the economic exile .
Other factors that might foster the desire to return among exile communities are the racist attitudes of the indigenous people in the host countries, especially against Muslims. This became substantially pronounced after events of 11th of September 2001 in the USA, the war in Iraq, the attacks in Spain in March 2003 and the negative attitude towards refugees in general. This has led to a mode of living in isolation without attempting to integrate into the host country. This has appeared quite obvious in the study on Iranian exiles in Sweden, which was done by Graham and Khosravi, and the experience of the Assyrians and Arab Iraqi exiles in Britain, which was done by Al-Rasheed .
The Specificity Palestinian refugee issue
The Palestinian refugee case is the longest ever refugee problem among all others. It has lasted over 56 years and is not likely to be solved in the near future. Their exile continues against the well-established international principles and United Nations (UN) resolutions which have supported the Palestinian right to return to their homes. UN Resolution 194 of 11th December 1948, which calls for their repatriation, has been reaffirmed by the General Assembly over 135 times since 1948). Viorst notes:
"In contrast, the UN singled out the Palestinians By choosing to take responsibility for them directly. It was by no means indifferent to the benevolence extended to the refugees by public and private bodies. On contrary UNRWA from the start has been financed by voluntary contributions, chiefly by member states. "
The strategy which has been adopted by the UNHCR to secure repatriation for all refugees to their countries of origin and even the policies of host countries to force them to return have failed to secure repatriation for the Palestinians to their homes. Palestinian refugees have no access to a functional scheme that secures return to their homes. Other refugees in various parts of the world are enabled to go back to their homes of origin if they wish to do so. This could be facilitated by several international bodies.
Although many people the world over have suffered from colonial domination, which often led to collective punishment and sometimes expulsion and mass migration, it was rare to find a whole people being uprooted, expelled, and dispersed simultaneously in complete denial of nationhood as was the case with the Palestinians . Professor Janet Abu-lughed described this saying:
Except for the extermination of Tasmanians, modern history knows no cases in which the virtually complete supplanting of the indigenous population of the country by an alien stock has been achieved in as little as two generations. Yet this, in fact is what has been attempted in Palestine since the beginning of the twentieth century.
The Israeli attitude towards Palestinians
The Israeli state claims juridical responsibility for the Jewish people all over the world under the Israeli Law of Return, which motivates the globalisation of the Palestinian issue . Israel defined in explicit terms the connection between the Jewish Diaspora and the State of Israel as a state of Jewish people. According to the same law mentioned above:
"Israeli criminal law will also apply to...the life of Jew, his body, his health, or his property because he is a Jew, or the property of a Jewish institution, because it is Jewish" .
This of course has led Palestine and the Middle East to be one of the priorities in the foreign affairs of all countries which transport or are designated to transport Jewish immigrants to the new state. Understandably, each Jewish person in the world will be very keen and might do his best to keep the Palestinian refugees far away. He would do whatever is needed to avoid the implementation of the Palestinian right to return. This issue has unified Jews from far the left to far right in the Israeli political arena. In this respect the Palestinian refugee issue stands out as very unique in the world.
Yosef Weitz, who was for many years, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonisation Department, said:
Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country... there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them: Not one village, not one tribe, should be left.
A young Israeli soldier participating in the invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 1982 said:
'I would like all the Palestinians dead because they are a sickness wherever they go'
Chomsky recalled Israeli official attitude toward the Palestinians in past decades, when he quoted the former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir answering a journalist's question by asking: "The Palestinians, who are they? They don't exist."
Chomsky thinks that some of the reasons that have caused this Israeli denial of the Palestinians as a nation are the support of the USA and Western countries .
Britain played an essential role in the early stages giving support to Jews as new immigrants to Palestine. One of the factors that played a vital role in securing the transfer of hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants to Palestine between 1922 (the start of the British Mandate over Palestine) until 1948 (the establishment of the State of Israel) with the full assistance of the British Mandate authorities and other Western countries is the success of the Zionist propaganda in marketing the myth that:
"Palestine, a land without people is for the people without land"
Britain's role was essential in supporting the Jewish immigrants, which was one of the factors that motivated the feeling of superiority over the Palestinians, the indigenous inhabitants of the land .
This explains why Palestine as a country has been erased in a very dramatic and rapid manner in the geography of Western countries. Only a few years after 1948 when the State of Israel was established, Palestine did not exist anymore in the geographical map of the world; its name was hardly mentioned in the media and it started to be difficult to recognise as a word among the public in the Western countries. This state of affairs seemed hardly a matter of coincidence. Karmi described this in illustrating her experience in exile as a Palestinian in Britain just after the Nakba (the Palestinian Catastrophe):
"In any case, no one in England seemed to remember Palestine either. It is remarkable how quickly the word went out of general use. By 1953, when people asked me where I came from I answered "Palestine", they would respond, "Did you say Pakistan? Palestine, whose turbulent history had so frustrated Britain's government but five years before, simply vanished from people consciousness. Instead the talk was for Israel, the new young plucky state that was making such rapid advances."
Almost 78% of historic Palestine came under occupation by the newly created State of Israel in 1948; more than 60% (around 750,000) of the Arab population became refugees as a consequence .
Contrary to its declared mission to solve the problems and conflicts all over the world, the United Nations (UN) is fully responsible for creating the Palestinian refugee problem. It issued Resolution 181 on 29th November 1947, which divided Palestine into two parts; more than half of it (57%) was given to the new Jewish immigrants who had arrived to Palestine from various countries around the world . Consequently, direct responsibility for the existence of Palestinian refugees lies with the United Nations .
In a global context, the Palestinian refugees are the only refugees who are being cared for by a special international agency. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) was established in December 1949 exclusively for them. The Palestinian refugees have not been included for protection under the mandate given to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Instead, the UN established a separate body called the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) in 1948. A significant gap exists in the provision of international protection for the Palestinian refugee and displaced persons due to the collapse of the UNCCP and the limited protection afforded by the UNHCR
The current situation
In 1993, the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Israeli Prime Minister signed a political accord for what was expected to be a permanent peace. The refugee problem was postponed to the final status negotiations, which were supposed to have ended in 1999. The refugee issue has been seen by all parties involved in the conflict as the most complicated problem to be tackled in order to achieve a peace settlement. The responsibility for their eviction from their homeland, their political identity, settlement or resettlement, compensation for their losses and the internal politics of the host countries are some of obstacles . Nablsi believes that the central role of the Oslo arrangements was to shelve the hard issues (including the core of the original conflict, the refugees) to a later date, known as "final status".
Another political accord was signed in December 2003 in Geneva between some Palestinian officials and academics with some prominent figures from the Israeli left wing political arena . The head of the Israeli delegation Yossi Beilin, was quoted by the daily Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz as saying: "No Palestinian will enter Israel under a 'right of return'... There is no right of return... there is no right of return here... whoever thinks that through some clause or other he can say that there is a right of return- there is no right of return here... there is no right of return in this agreement, and there will be none". Beilin was trying to account for the Geneva Accord, the unofficial Palestinian-Israeli peace Plan . He was candid to mention that there is not a single clause from the declaration that explicitly mentions such a right to repatriate The glance at the officials who attended the launch (heads of state, representatives of governments who have interests in the region and academics) of this declaration reflects the huge official political support given to this initiative of which resolving the refugee problem is a central part.
The obsession with the Jewish identity of the state has been a central pillar of Israeli propaganda to justify their rejection of any compromise on the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in what became the State of Israel in the aftermath of the events of 1948. This was mentioned in several official statements issued by successive American governments, which have called on the Palestinians to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Other peace initiatives such as the Road Map and the Clinton proposals at Camp David in July 2000 all view the solving of the problem of the right of return by exchanging the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their home with the right to return to a promised Palestinian state, which might be one of the outcomes of the assumed final peace negotiations .
The argument from the politicians; Israelis, Americans, Europeans, some Arab countries and the Palestinian leaders who signed the initiatives, for the Palestinian refugees not to return to their homes is based on several assumptions; it was a long time since the Palestinians left their homes, several generations have been brought up away from home, some Palestinian communities in exile have been well settled and integrated in fairly well-to-do circumstances in some of the host countries especially those who ended up in Europe and the Americas . Thus, the principle of 'return' has become a myth much like for other communities in exile. The changes that took place in the Palestinians' homes of origin were extremely dramatic. The villages from which they were expelled do not exist anymore. An entirely new nation (Jewish people) has replaced the Palestinians in the same geography. The politicians have tried to support their argument with academic research and theories, which were applied to other exile communities .
Another assumption was that any solution could be enforced and that the Palestinian refugees would accept this, whether voluntary or involuntary. This has appeared to be an underestimation of the potential of the Palestinian people and the importance of addressing the refugee issue in a just and fair manner, taking into consideration the general opinion of the people themselves .
The opinion of the Palestinian refugees outside Palestine has not been represented or taken into consideration at any stage of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations throughout the 13 years since the Madrid Summit under the auspices of several Western countries and the UN. The Israeli opinion and strategy was that the refugees would disappear from the map if they disappeared off the negotiation table. The Oslo Accord created a problem of representation for Palestinians outside of the homeland. Additionally, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was replaced by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), whose authority was limited only to parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This has led to a further fragmentation of the Palestinian national movement.
The Geneva initiative formula dealt with the refugee problem through the means of naturalisation and resettlement, mainly in the host countries and third party countries. This might be done by giving the Palestinian refugees the option to choose the place of permanent abode but not to practice the right of return to the homes from which they were expelled. The question is; how valid is that? Would the Palestinian refugees worldwide accept it? What is their attitude towards the right of return? Is it correct to deal with the right of return in an individual way?
In March 2001, a Joint Parliamentary Middle East Council Commission of Enquiry published a report on Palestinian Refugees and the right of return. Its conclusion and recommendations address the issue of political and civic representation of the refugees - including their voices - as the main shortcoming in the past ten years in finding a solution to the refugee issue that would be acceptable and durable:
"There were several discrete aspects concerning the complex subject of representation. This issue is the most complicated of all, but it is also perhaps the most understudied and misunderstood part of the refugee life. We learnt that over different sets of rights and concerns there were different responses to the question of representativeness. The Commission learnt that representation involves different understandings depending on the issue at hand: individual property rights, civil rights and collective rights as a people to self-determination"
The Palestinian population is currently estimated to be more than 8 million dispersed all over the world . More than 85% of the population are still living in historic Palestine and neighbouring countries (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt). Nearly 4,136,449 of them are recognized officially as refugees according to the records of UNRWA dated 31st December 2003 . The remainder of Palestinians are scattered over the six continents of the world. Around 150,000 - 200,000 of them have settled in several countries across Europe in the past five decades. There are an estimated 20,000 presently living in the United Kingdom (UK) . It is very difficult to ascertain the exact number of Palestinians presently residing in Europe generally or Britain specifically. One reason for this is because there is no question related to an identification of the country of origin in the national census questionnaire in several European countries.
This study seeks to investigate the arguments that inform refugee attitude toward the right of return. It examines their validity with regard to the Palestinian community in the UK as a sample of the dispersed Palestinians in Europe. Another issue of concern is how previous studies have portrayed the Palestinians in the UK with regard to their thinking of home and their right of return? It will also illustrate some features of the life of the Palestinian community in Britain.
Chapter 2
Critique of literature and methodology
Most studies on the issue of exile communities, their experiences in the host countries and their attitude toward the country of origin, ignore the experience of the Palestinians as an exile community. They have been, in the main, inaccurate in portraying the truth. On the other extreme, there are many studies on the experiences of the Jewish community in exile.
When Summerfield listed the main areas of conflict in the world, he mentioned the 'Israeli Occupied Territories' among 35 other conflicts. Anyone who is unaware of the finer details of the situation in West Bank and Gaza Strip would be misled into believing that the Israeli people were under occupation by others . In the same study, Summerfield addressed the targeting of health workers in various areas of conflict in the world. Again he mentioned "the occupied territories" without classifying it as Palestinian . Surprisingly, Summerfield highlighted the targeting of symbols of culture and traditions in several conflicts such as East Timor, Cambodia, Guatemala and Serbia. In this regard, he also mentions the conflicts in southern Sudan and southern Turkey. Summerfield is regarded as an authority on Iraq's Kurdish and Shi'ite population. Despite his evident wide interest in conflicts across the region Summerfield has remained disturbingly silent on the conflict in Palestine, where systematic violations and assaults have been committed by the Israeli authorities against symbols of Palestinian tradition and cultural forms. He nonetheless persuasively argues that: "it is the destruction of the social fabric of the society which is targeted in much contemporary warfare, for the very purpose of instilling fear, disorientation and loss of identity". Having identified ten areas where the identity of nations were targeted Summerfield says nothing about the Palestinian experience!
The studious disregard of the Palestinian exiles is also reflected in the work of Ben Mayor and Skotnes who claim not to find any researcher to cover the Palestinians' experience in exile. They nevertheless were able to find others who managed to highlight nine other exile communities including the Ethiopian Jews . It is hard to understand that a historian borne of several migrations and social scientists such as Ben Mayor and Skotnes choose to ignore the Palestinians in exile and their identity, whereas they successfully highlight aspects of the identity problems in the experience of several other exile communities. They are aware of the differences of the experiences and the necessity to bring to the attention of researchers as many models as they can to prove their beliefs. For example, they note about the essays in their book:
"Although from different historical and cultural perspectives, all of the essays recognise that the identity is not homogenous or fixed, so that there are many ways of being black, Mexican American, Chilean, Chinese, Australian, a Jew, a woman, a lesbian, a favelada, a migrant, a labourer, a student, a refugee."
It would be strange if such researchers had not come across the books of Edward Said when illustrating the experience of the Palestinians in exile, and the way Palestinian identity is dealt with in the future, including the issue of identity in his book ' the Question of Palestine . Said's book is older than Ben Mayor and Skotnes's by fourteen years. Both were printed and distributed in USA!
Although the Palestinians have been scattered all over the world and their issue predominates many of the UN discussions, Cohen cited in his book ‘Global Diasporas,' the main exile communities in history are the Jews, Africans, Armenians, Indians, Chinese, Lebanese, Sikhs, Zionists and people of the Caribbean. Like his contemporaries, he also overlooked the Palestinian Diaspora in his studies . Indeed, Cohen deals with the Palestinian experience as a diaspora community in an unfair manner. In his book, " Global Diasporas: An Introduction", Cohen dedicates two chapters to highlighting the Jewish Diaspora. He spares no effort to mention every single aspect regarding Israel and the Jewish Diaspora in 12 pages of Chapter 5. Amazingly, he found no room for a single paragraph to illustrate the effect of the massive Jewish immigration to Palestine on the Palestinian Diaspora despite the direct linkage between both experiences .
It appears, therefore, that are very few studies that have focussed any significant attention on the normal experience of exile communities and that of the Palestinians. Whereas the vast majority of these communities still have the full choice to return to their countries of origin whenever they wish, the Palestinians cannot.
All the parties connected in one way or another to the Middle East conflict have done all in their power to deny the Palestinian refugees the right of returning to their homes and villages in that part of Palestine that officially became the State of Israel in 1948.
With regard to other exile communities, official policies were just the opposite. Repatriation to countries of origin at the earliest possible opportunity was always regarded as the preferred solution. Given these disparities is important therefore to examine whether the results from the studies, which have been done on other exile communities are valid for the Palestinian experience in general or the Palestinian community in Europe or UK in particular.
In this context one may ask how valid is Brah's definition of 'home' as a mythic place of desire in the imagination or mind of the Palestinian Diaspora when they try to define Palestine as a home. Is it just a dream?
A survey of the existing literature on the subject reveals no major comparative study on what are supposed to be two Diaspora communities (Palestinians and Jews) living in what is considered the same country of exile. Likewise, there is a noticeable lack of material that examines the effect of the flow of Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine on the mind of the Palestinian exile in European countries or UK. Accordingly, Brah was right when he mentioned that each empirical diaspora must be analysed in its historical specificity .
This is especially relevant to any study on the Palestinian community in exile, because of the very specificity of their experience when they left their home of origin. Graham and Khosravi's argument that "home is where you make it" is very apt. They analysed the factors that affect the Iranian exile in Sweden, which might be useful in studying the Palestinian exile in the UK.
They defined the exile and the normality of being attached to a specific geography . The description from Tabori of the attitude of any person in exile, such as always being viewed with suspicion by somebody might seem generally correct .
Al-Rasheed illustrated the continuity of Iraq in the psyche of the Iraqi exile community in UK, and their discomfort in the host country. This is a good study to be used in assessing the Palestinian community in the UK. One of the few studies that illustrated the meaning of homeland for the Palestinian Diaspora was Dorai's work which is a very short work, which did not cover the Palestinians in Europe . Another study on the Palestinian community in Europe by Dorai, in Arabic, was poorly documented, brief and lacking in information about the Palestinians in the UK. For example, he did not classify the several waves of migration to the UK. Dorai mentions nothing about the recent Palestinian exiles who arrived in the UK during the 1990s. Abbas Shiblak's paper has proven to be much more informative than Dorai's in classifying the Palestinians in UK according to time of arrival and their social and economic conditions. It did not however address the issue of right of return for the Palestinians in Europe. Shiblak's work, it appears, did not explore sufficiently the attachment of the Palestinians in Europe and Britain to Palestine. He did not moreover take into account the impact of the Aqsa Intifada (Uprising) on Palestinian attitude toward their homeland. The exile experience in England of Karmi as a Palestinian since 1948 was documented by her in an article published on more than one occasion. Her experience has since been documented in a book written by Karmi herself titled "In Search for Fatima". It is very valuable and accurate in describing in deep detail, the relationship between Palestine and Palestinians and the factors that form such a strong bond. This study will examine whether the national identity, according to Rose's definition in 'A place in the World' , is still preserved by the Palestinians in the UK. There are ample references, which highlight the theoretical aspect of the issue of exile and the experience of other exile communities. For example, Graham and Khosravi covered the meaning of home, the definition of exile, the sense of place, the return as a myth, the relation with specific geography, the influence of the image of home on the return, the political motivation to go home, the creation of home in exile and the obstacles to return . Adamson's article makes interesting reading. It illustrates and analyses the relations among the community of exile itself on the one hand and the relation with home on the other.
On another level Adamson's study examines the various political identities across the spectrum of the Palestinian exile communities and the effect they have had on the principle of return. He highlights, in addition, the relationships between the various exile communities in their different places of abode.
The role of modern technology such as the internet has been critical in organizing the exile communities. This study examines the part played by a number of satellite channels in influencing popular opinion among the exile communities. Similarly, it acknowledges the importance of lobbying as a means of influencing politicians in the host countries in order to bring about political changes in the country of origin . The experience of the Kashmiri Diaspora in the UK, which was illustrated by Ellis and Khan, is recognized as a good example of how much can be achieved politically in the host country while remaining attached to country of origin at the same time
Methodology
This study is mainly a qualitative one. The author used two methods in assessing the Palestinian exile in the UK. Firstly, I reviewed the literature available on the topic; this included; books, unpublished papers, newspaper articles, magazines and bulletins, TV programmes, videos and a number of websites on the internet. I studied the literature which illustrates the experiences of other exile communities, which might share common factors with the Palestinians such as; language, religion, culture and ethnicity. These include, in particular, Iraqis in Britain, Iranians in Sweden and Kashmiris in the UK.
In the course of the preparation of this study the author conducted several in-depth interviews with various personalities in order to identify and examine dominant trends among the Palestinians in the UK. The average duration of each interview was 45 minutes. In addition, I consulted the memoir of Karmi as one of the sourses to explore the opinion of the Palestinian community. I took into consideration the opinion of her father, mother and sister as presented in her book "In Search for Fatima." I interviewed as well Mr. Rajab Chmalackh, President of the Palestinian community in UK and Mr. Fuad Hadad, Editor of Al-Urwa Bulletin which is issued by the Arab Club in Britain. The classification of the interviewees was as follows:
- Four females and five males.
- Three live in Manchester, six in London and one in a small town outside of London.
- They were 14, 17, 19, 19, 25, 34, 40, 48 and 56 years old.
- The most recent arrival to the UK among the interviewees was 7 years ago, then 8, 9, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 26, and 56 years ago.
- One of them was in secondary school, three in universities, one in the financial sector, one in the medical profession, one in law, one was a mechanic, and one was retired.
- Three were unmarried daughters, one was an unmarried son, one grandfather, and the others were married with children.
The questions were direct and explored the following areas:
1- The internal relationships among the Palestinian community in the UK
2- Their involvement in political life of the UK.
3- Their relation with the Palestinian people in Palestine.
4- The effect of the unstable situations in the Occupied Territories on the life of the exile community in the UK.
5- Is there any effect of the historic British involvement in Palestine on the relations with Palestine?
6- The relation of the community in the UK with other Palestinian communities in exile especially in Europe.
7- The effect of ethnicity and religion in forging Palestinian attitudes in UK.
8- How the technological revolution in the communications industry such as satellite TV stations and internet have eased contacts with relatives across the world and how this in turn has affected trends among Palestinians in the UK toward their homeland?
9- How do they evaluate the role of Palestinian NGO's in shaping the Palestinian identity?
10- How do the incidents of Al-Aqsa Intifadah in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, the events of 11th September 2001 in New York, and the 2003 US led war in Iraq affect the Palestinian community and their attitude towards Palestine and their altitude toward the right of return.
11- How do they feel about the flow of Jewish immigration on a daily basis to the homeland? Do they feel normal? Are there any motivations toward their right of return?
12- Does this mean anything to second and the third generation who were born in UK and brought up here? Is the UK considered to be home?
13- His or her involvement in social life among the Palestinians in the UK.
14- How do they classify their identity?
15- Where do they consider as home?
16 The effect of the media on their attitude toward Palestine.
18- What does Palestine mean to them?
19- How do they see their right of return to Palestine?
20- What options do they see as an alternative to return to Palestine?
Ethical issues and practical challenges
One of the main problems encountered in preparing this study was the lack of adequate literature on the issue of the Palestinian community in Europe and the UK in particular. Several existing studies have proven to be inaccurate. There is no official record as such to show the real figures of the Palestinian population and their places of residence in the UK. In conducting the interviews tried to ensure that the interviewees were free and comfortable to express their views.
Initially, the method of research was disclosed to all the interviewees. The gravity of the situation in Palestine and its dominant presence in the media has affected the outcome of this study dramatically.
