ABSTRACT
The displacement and dispersal of Palestinian refugees following the disastrous 1948 war with Israel, and the 1967 war as well, has meant that nearly half of all Palestinians—perhaps as many as 5 or 6 million people—live outside Israel and the occupied territories. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are represented by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and by parties and confederations such as Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), but Samih Farsoun and Naseer Aruri raise the issue of who speaks for the diaspora community. The demise of PLO institutions has all but eliminated the transnational connectedness of the refugees and other diaspora communities, leaving them relatively voiceless in Palestinian affairs. One notable difference between the leaderships of “internal” (Gaza and West Bank) and “external” (diaspora) Palestinians is the priority given by the diasporan community to the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties inside historic Palestine, including what is now Israel. The right of return thus becomes a fundamental component of the Palestinian appeal to Israel and the international community, alongside the call for the return of the occupied territories (Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem), the dismantling of the security wall, and the recognition of the full equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Farsoun and Aruri conclude that the imbalance of power between a weak PA and a strong Israel means that the Palestinians are not likely to achieve an independent state of their own. That is, a two-state solution is an unlikely outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, Farsoun and Aruri foresee a “binational” state as a more viable option, at least in the long run. In such a state, a combined Israel-Palestine would cease to be a Jewish state. The two ethnic nationalities would retain their cultural identities and, eventually, coexist in harmony, with equal rights and equal citizenship.
