Two and a half generations have already been wasted since 1948, the year of the Nakba or catastrophe for the Palestinians and of Independence for the Israelis. Unfortunately both people have been selfish, blindly nationalistic, driven by ideology, and oblivious to the suffering they have caused themselves and each other. In this issue of AVP I am addressing the Palestinians who have let more than half of their own people continue to live as refugees, stateless, in poverty, lacking in education, and dependent on others for survival. They have made that "sacrifice" in the name of what they consider their Right of Return, with little attention to the practicality of their return to their homes, villages, and country, which, since 1948, has been Israel. They quote UN General Assembly Resolution 194 to justify their Right, even though that resolution is not binding. It can be enforced by the Security Council only if it is passed by a majority, and unanimously by the five permanent members of that Council, which includes the US, Russia, China, France, and England. All the permanent members are supporters of Israel, and any one of them is capable of using its Veto power to prevent implementation. Since 1967 the Palestinians have cited Security Council Resolution 242 as another justification for the Right of Return. However, Resolution 242 addresses the whole issue of peace between Israel and its neighbors, and a "Just" solution to the refugee problem, with little indication that "just" means the Refugees' Right to Return to their homes and villages, which are now within Israel.

The Palestinian refugees are reinforced in their insistence on the Right of Return by their own leaders, the leaders of the Arab countries, and by leaders of nongovernmental organizations, all of whom live in safety and comfort. The rendition of the right of return as a just settlement, regardless of the costs to the refugees themselves, generates false hopes of quick and easy return. The refugees seem to believe that some day they will be able to return to their homes and villages-when, how, or if ever seem to be of little concern to those leaders. Even the General Assembly of the United Nations carries partial responsibility for the apparent perpetuation of the negative impact of the Right of Return motto by delaying a solution to the refugee problem. A majority of member countries of the General Assembly, with little power or influence to make a difference, vote each year on keeping the Right of Return alive. The UN carries a responsibility for perpetuation of the refugee status also by giving economic and other kinds of aid to 3.67 million registered refugees, who depend on UNRWA, for survival while in that status. Most of all, the Palestinians have not been able to propose an alternative to the Right of Return, assuming they are interested in finding an alternative, probably because they are afraid of being branded as traitors. Yet, they do not seem to feel sorry for the generations of Palestinians who are being wasted in the process.

The Palestinians seem to be living in delusions. They always act like victims who deserve sympathy. They accept meager help from other countries for mere survival. They seem to forget that they had opportunities to establish their own state, which they rejected. However, they may still have that opportunity by being a little more realistic in assessing their situation. They seek mediation by other countries, but they rarely comply with the recommendations of the mediators, charging them with bias in favor of Israel. That may be true, but they fail to remember that all the powerful countries are committed to the security of Israel, as illustrated by their political statements, by their votes in the UN, and by their failure to endorse a Security Council resolution on the Right of Return. Yet, even if they were to pass such a resolution, they would always find ways to avoid its enforcement because it could hurt Israel.

Any rational analysis of the Palestinian refugee problem would show that the costs, material and human, do outweigh the benefits of clinging to the Right of Return as a viable solution in the foreseeable future, even though other viable alternatives may be available. The most evident such alternative is to postpone or set aside indefinitely the expectation that the Right of Return will be implemented any time soon. By doing so, the Palestinians become free of the burdensome obligation of continuing to live in camps, of depending on UN aid to survive, or on the austere charity from other countries. That, however, does not mean that they should forget about their Right of Return, philosophically or in principle. It means that they become free to seek their own fortunes anywhere, with the whole world as their horizon.

Some will remain poor, but others will become wealthy. Some will face difficulties in finding jobs, but others will become indispensable professionals in the world economy. Some will enjoy help from different countries, while others will find the strength in themselves to create their own opportunities and their own fortunes. In 1978 Haim Darin-Drabkin and I proposed a two-state solution and absorption of the refugees in the Palestinian state with boundaries according to UN Resolution 242. The number of refugees at that time was much smaller than it is now. With compensation for the properties left behind and other forms of aid from the world community, a State of Palestine seemed economically viable. It may still be so, but only if the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian leaders seek additional venues to utilize the energy and human and material capital of their people in productive ways. Freedom from the refugee status has many advantages. It may bring start-up capital, in addition to the presumed compensation they may receive for lost opportunities. It may open doors for professional education and training. It may offer business opportunities that are not available to them at the present time. In 1996 I suggested that the Palestinians would do well in Iraq and Sudan, where land and water are abundant. A Palestinian colleague objected that the Palestinians are urban people. So what? Could they not learn and excel in agriculture the way other people do?

The Palestinians are capable in the professions, in education, and in economic endeavors. However, to be able to take advantage of their capabilities they have to be free, not only from the Israeli siege they have been under for months, but also from the traditional convictions and commitments to a refugee status that has cost them two and a half generations of human capital. The Palestinians can still open the door and get out. They can abandon the refugee status and the refugee camps. They can become residents and citizens wherever the opportunity prevails. They can do all that and still remember their homes, villages, and the properties they left behind, which they hear about but most have never seen. In fact their new status may make it possible for them to visit their places of origin, without claiming the right to return to them. In the meantime they can accumulate knowledge, human and material capital, become wealthy, and develop expertise in political and diplomatic relations, enough to influence their own future in a peaceful and productive way.

Two and a half generations of Palestinians have arguably been wasted. It is high time for the Palestinian people to wake up. It is time to search for a light at the end of the refugee tunnel. It is time to take advantage of the opportunities that may open up for them in Palestine and around the world. By doing so they will no longer be dependent on charity for survival. They will no longer have to rely on unreliable others for protection, or on NGOs, all of whom are too weak to make a difference. The Palestinians are a people with dignity and self-respect. With independence, freedom, and rational thinking, they could and should excel in the world community and among the sovereign nations.

* Professor emeritus of economics, University of California, Davis, CA.