Some Lebanese newspaper paused on the next September recognition, and the resulting implications including the declaration of the independent country of Palestine within the borders of June 4th and Jerusalem as capital.
Some analyst see this resolution as the end of the Palestinian case, therefore the Palestinian refugees will become a burden on the hosting Arab countries. Other analyst see this resolution as incitement to donors to regress their support to UNRWA , which will decrease it services due to the regression and budget shortage. To reserve the camps from the negative effects of this regression, some suggested connecting the camps to neighboring municipalities in Lebanon to be held responsible for them.
With this analysis we have the following notes:
1-no opposition, at all, between the declaration of independent Palestine and the guarantee of the refugees' right to return to home and to their deserted property of 1948, if they commit to the national Palestinian agenda. The facts confirms that refugees will not approve of any alternative to their right to return, and what happened in Al Nakba day on 15/5/2011 is a clear prove.
2- the refuges won't be a burden on the host countries. As the fate of UNRWA is in the hand of U.N general assembly. And so, the allies of Palestinian people along Palestinian state will have a big contribution to provide the necessary finance for UNRWA, which doesn't necessary means that it will overcome its long lasting financial crisis. But the existence of the financial crisis doesn't mean that the agency will be on the verge of bankruptcy since the political pressure sponsors the agency with elixir of life, i.e. money.
3- heinous mistake the proposal of connecting camps with municipalities. We appreciate the attention to reserve camps and solve its daily issues. But, with appreciation, the connecting of camps with municipalities is a step both legally and politically dangerous, as it will converts camps to parts of the municipalities, which is a form of resettlements. Instead municipalities could, for example, reduce a part of its budget and deliver this part to UNRWA under a project proposed by the municipality based on its former knowledge of camps ( shelter reparation, infrastructure reformation etc.
The execution of these project must be under the UNRWA's supervision, as its the international reference for refugees and the international witness on the crime of the century, with the acknowledgment of responsibility from the international community toward this crime and the necessity of a happy ending to enable Palestinians to practice their right to return to home and to resorted property of 1948.
This proposal is a result of two experiences: a positive and a negative one.
The positive experience is when the Palestinian authority banded the camps to participate in the local elections. And its persistence on the separation of camps and its municipal surrounding. The reference of the municipalities is the ministry of local affairs A.K.A ministry of municipalities. But the reference of camps is UNRWA and the preservation of the legal status of camps_ the political status_ requires that the camps remain under the supervision of UNRWA and not under municipalities supervision.
The negative experience is the experience of the Jordanian regime with camps, under the frame work of so-called bundle of social safety, with the decision to attach camps with neighboring municipalities which was received with negative reactions by refugees as it’s a step toward resettlement and a commitment from the Jordanian regime with the 8th amendment of Wadi Arabe treaty with Israel which states that the answer to the refugees in Jordan is resettlement. Without forgetting the role of Jordan in the Arabic peace initiative that didn't mention the right of return but referred to the justice and agreed solution (agreed with Israel) which means resettlement, without equivocation.
