The humanitarian status of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon's camps is tragic and disastrous in every meaning of the word, while the level of deprivation that prevails in them is limitless on all levels. This situation has been ongoing ever since these camps were created following the displacement of the Palestinians from their country in parallel with the establishment of the state of Israel over six decades ago. However, the increase and depth of the disaster are due to the demographic growth within these camps, which was not caused by sudden or new factors. The status of the refugees in Lebanon is organically linked to the nature of the country and its demographic and sectarian structure which – since the establishment of the camps – has prevented the Palestinians in Lebanon from enjoying a status similar to the one enjoyed by their counterparts in other Arab countries. In this context, there seems to be some sort of concord between all the components of the country over this official state policy toward the camps, at times in the name of the right of return and at others to prevent naturalization – each of which is used based on the requirements of the prevailing circumstances. As for the promotion of solidarity and lamentation seen throughout the past stage as well as during the current one, it is expanding in concomitance with the insistence of those responsible for it on having the refugees remain inside their camps. This may be some sort of racial separation exercised by each and every one of the country's components, whether directly or indirectly, to the point where it has become a quasi-official policy. In the meantime, the serious reassessment of this policy calls for another type of concord in Lebanon and not mere statements, regardless of how fervent they may be. On the other hand, in regard to what is currently being put forward, it is likely that its goals extend beyond the tragedy of the Palestinians in the camps and rather falls in the context of civil sectarian conflict – especially since the issue of the Palestinians' humanitarian situation has become an international topic due to the Israeli blockade on Gaza, as each side is trying to exploit this reality in its favor. In any case, regardless of the actual intentions in regard to giving the refugees their civil rights, such a step will carry massive costs for the state, which is already suffering from a debt amounting to $55 billion and is facing livelihood demands it is unable or unwilling to fulfill due to the additional burdens they will entail. Therefore, at a time when the Lebanese are as deprived as the refugees and their rights as violated, the enthusiasts about the rights of the refugees should have suggested the ways to fund the step and should have considered the extent of the compatibility between this step and what is being offered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is also bankrupt. On the other hand, and in order for the step to have credibility, the proposals should also have tackled the rights of the refugees in the context of the overall status of the Palestinians in Lebanon, the issue of sovereignty inside the camps, the arms outside the camps and the military posts near the capital and on the Eastern border with Syria, which the parties participating in the national dialogue agreed to remove. Nonetheless, prior to all these steps, the question on the table revolves around the meaning behind the proposition of this topic in parliament and not inside the Cabinet. It was raised in parliament based on the wish of its speaker, the leader of the Amal Movement, which once waged the fiercest battles against the camps. This granted the proposal at this point in time, a political character revealing suspicions surrounding the exploitation of the status of the refugees in the domestic conflict. Moreover, it entailed an acute sectarian division which penetrated all the blocs and political factions inside the Council, at a time when it would be naïve to think that such a division was unexpected – if not intentional. In short, it appeared that the Christian deputies were opposed to granting the refugees their human rights, while the latter step was supported by the Muslim deputies. Such a climate secured the right circumstances for the distribution of statements in Sidon, calling for the displacement of the Christians. Regardless of the identity of the side standing behind these statements and the overall condemnation of their content, they are opening that lethal hole in the coexistence prevailing over the country. For the refugees in Lebanon to lead a decent life – like in any other place around the world – is an indisputable right. However, the pitching of the issue the way it was seen and at this point in time, as well as the accusations of treason which accompanied it, rendered it the object of domestic exploitation instead of it being related to the defense of the dignity of the refugees.
