This refugee camp and its people have been here since 1948.

Memories of what was fill the house of Haj Mahmoud al-Amleh, the camp leader. Everything around him is a reminder of 51 years of exile and deprivation of the simplest human rights: a suitable home, a steady income and a secure future.

Al-Amleh was 11-years-old when he and his family fled Jaffa, leaving behind an orange grove and his father's body - his father had refused to leave and was killed beneath the shadow of his own orange tree. "Our situation was so much better then," the Haj says. "At least we never went to bed hungry, even during a drought or a depression. We had a roof over our heads every night rather than this stable in which we are living now, surrounded by sewage water and disease."

It is the fate of al-Amleh and the approximately four million refugees like him that now lies in the balance as Palestinians and Israel meet to settle the score.

Al-Fawwar is just one of the 59 camps registered with the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA). That number does not include those refugee camps that are not registered with the international agency. The camps are scattered throughout the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. While conditions in the camps vary, all of the refugees have one aspiration. They have nothing to leave for their children except the dream of return.

These days, discussion in the camps has taken on an urgent quality. Whether in whispers or out loud, Palestinian refugees voice suspicions that their future is in danger of being squandered away - in resettlement, restitution or the simplification of their problem.

"We are worried and afraid for the future of our children and those to come," says Fathi Aloul from Askar Refugee Camp in Nablus as he helps his daughter to climb up the broken stairs to his home. "We have learned from [the Oslo accords] and everything that followed not to trust the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian negotiator. We do not want those who are not part of us to take on our cause."

The Palestinian leader, President Yasser Arafat, who was once proudly lifted on the refugees' shoulders because he promised to fight for their return to their lands and homes, has been a deep disappointment, the refugees say.

"Arafat sold us out when he gave his consent for the Palestinian state to be on lands within the 1967 borders," says Aloul, his voice rising. "We do not expect that he or the Palestinian negotiators will do us justice, for they do not know the bitterness of our life in these camps."

"They lived a luxurious life when they were outside and when they returned their lives were easy and their jobs were waiting for them. And now he [Arafat] is panting behind the chance to declare a Palestinian state, even if this state is on just one square kilometer. I would not be surprised if declaring the state is at the expense of the refugees' right of return."

Therein lies the rub. The Palestinian refugees, once the core of the Palestinian resistance, now find themselves a bargaining chip. Arafat cannot get support for a settlement with Israel unless the refugees - one-half of the world's Palestinian population - are on board. But without major overhauls to the Israeli position, which rejects any right of return to Israel and does not accept responsibility for their fate, Palestinian refugees say they will not be satisfied.

To prevent the worst, Palestinian refugees are organizing among themselves. "We have nothing to lose," says Afif Ibrahim from Ayda Refugee Camp in Bethlehem. Israel destroyed his village of Beit Jibrin in 1948. To be quoted on this issue, he refuses to give his name.

"We have already lost our house, land, future and even our dignity. All we have left are memories of the past and the dream of return, which we passed down throughout the generations. Through the Intifada and our struggle against Israel we were able to preserve these memories and the dream."

Afif's words carry a threat. "We will not allow Arafat or anyone else to kill this dream that we have lived by and for. It is the only legacy we can leave for our children and their children. The people who carried stones to confront Israeli soldiers are also able to carry another stone to confront anyone who tries to destroy our dream of return."

The Oslo Accords and its subsequent formation of the Palestinian Authority that now seeks to establish a Palestinian state on Palestinian lands occupied by Israel in 1967 have confused the meaning of the "right of return" locally and internationally. While the right of return refers to the internationally-recognized right to go home, Arafat's compromise has changed that definition. It has now become commonplace for Middle East political analysts to talk about settling Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian state that will be established on land occupied in 1967, foregoing the land inside what is now Israel.

"Arafat has annulled everything on which the Palestinian revolution was based and everything that he himself used to call for during his days in the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]," says Dr. Hisham Ahmad, a Birzeit University professor of political science and a resident of Dheisheh Refugee Camp in Bethlehem.

"He has given another definition of the 'return' with his consent to establish a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. We can no longer talk about the Palestinian return to areas occupied in 1948. Israel rejects even talk of this subject because it is a direct threat to its existence. I would not be surprised if the Authority accepts one of the proposed solutions to end the refugee crisis in the final status negotiations, the framework for which is to be set by February 2000."

Palestinian Legislative Council member Husam Khader, who is from Nablus' Balata refugee camp, accuses the Palestinian negotiators of short-sightedness. "Palestinian negotiators committed a cardinal sin from the very beginning when they postponed discussing the refugee issue to final status negotiations. My biggest fear is that the refugee issue will be thrown into the final status 'basket' and will be the most acceptable for compromise."

Khader fears the revival of a group of scenarios that offer a solution to the refugee problem. The most dangerous of these in his opinion is that represented by the alleged Beilin-Abu Mazen document that allows for a limited return. Khader believes that Israel will recognize the right of return in principle, but only purport to repatriate those who have families still in what is now Israel. He also says that rumors about plans like the Abu Mazen-Beilin document, a controversial draft final status agreement that the Palestinian Authority says does not exist, have undermined the Palestinians' trust in their leaders.

Local events have only managed to further disillusion Palestinian refugees. Last month, homes in the unregistered Birzeit Refugee Camp were demolished by the municipality because it wanted to build a church on what was once church land. After the resulting public uproar (even though few of the refugees remain in the camp) the local leadership acquiesced and is now rebuilding the homes it destroyed.

In Jericho, rumors have surfaced in Aqabat Jaber Refugee Camp that the Palestinian Authority wants to remove the camp because it is an eyesore for visitors to the neighboring casino, which the Palestinian Authority owns in part. The camp was established in 1948 and is recognized by UNRWA.

Adnan al-Zin, the local mukhtar, says that many of the camp's young people work in the casino and have managed to move out of the camp. He believes rumors that the camp might be removed because recently garbage collection and water services have become sporadic. "These are measures to force people to leave the camp."

But chief refugee affairs negotiator Assad Abdel Rahman denies those allegations. "This is just rumors that distort the image of the Authority in this critical stage. It is not in the interest of the Authority to remove any camps at this time because that would damage the credibility of the cause."

What may be a locally-inspired effort to push people out of the camp, or in fact no effort at all, has taken on ominous tones because Palestinian refugees have lost faith that the Palestinian Authority will do what is in their best interests.

In response to these concerns, Abdel Rahman stresses the Palestinian Authority commitment to United Nations General Assembly resolution 194. The resolution stipulates, he says, "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return."

Abdel Rahman says that proposals for resettlement and compensation have all been frustrated "by the steadfastness of the Palestinian people." Further, he denies the existence of any agreement, even one drafted only in principle, on a proposed settlement. "No one dares to take the historical responsibility for eliminating the Palestinian cause by aborting the Palestinian people's right to return. And if such a person does emerge one day, I will no longer stay in my position."

It seems significant, then, that Assad Abdel Rahman submitted his resignation to President Arafat on October 9. He says he is being pressured by certain individuals in the Authority, whose names he refused to disclose, to soften his stance on the refugee file, since the future of final status talks and the solution to the Palestinian problem depend on finding a solution to the refugee issue.

President Arafat subsequently rejected his resignation and has asked Abdel Rahman to continue his responsibility for the refugee file in final status negotiations.

Abdel Rahman has his work cut out for him. The past 50 years have given Zionism and US-led western interests in the region the opportunity to build support for the idea that the right of return for Palestinian refugees is illogical and virtually impossible.

Israel has focused on building the Jewish state and preserving its purity through an immigration policy with roots in the early 1900s. Between 1989 and 1997, Israel received 850,000 Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. This number nearly equals the number of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip combined. At the same time, Israel claims that it is impossible that Palestinian refugees return because the possibilities for regional absorption are limited in terms of area and resources.

The outright rejection of the idea of return for Palestinian refugees is the logical Israeli starting point for all discussions on this issue.

Abdel Rahman says, "There is no way to anticipate or predict the Israeli position in response to our demands, however we remain hopeful. We have nothing else but hope, for one simple reason. The balance of power is in Israel's favor and that of course weakens the Palestinian position."

Joseph Alpher, head of the Jerusalem office of the American-Jewish in the Middle East/Israel and an Israeli thinker who participated in Norwegian-sponsored academic talks on refugee issues this summer, has always rejected the right of return. He says that the Arabs are responsible for the Palestinian refugee problem because of their opposition to the establishment of the State of Israel and their subsequent declaration of war. He compares that war to the wars that created the Jewish refugee problem.

Alpher believes that the return of Palestinian refugees poses a threat to Israel's existence and Jewish identity, in addition to endangering its continuity and development. "For this reason Israel will continue to practice full control and sovereignty over its lands and people, whether Jewish, Arab or others in spite of any solution adopted for the refugee issue," says Alpher.

But Alpher goes further, rejecting the possibility of Israeli public support for the Palestinian right of return to the West Bank. He says Israelis staunchly reject UN General Assembly resolution 194, considering it a "an Arab political war against Israel."

He also says that UNRWA statistics on refugees are overly exaggerated due to a "systematic program that avoids the exclusion of local deaths in its lists. The only way to know the real number of refugees is to establish a bureaucratic system based on the solution that is to be found."

Alpher offers his own perspective on Israeli efforts to compromise. "We have offered a number of concessions to the Palestinians. Now there is talk of evacuating some settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and handing over about 85 percent of West Bank lands to the Palestinians, in addition to Israel's initial consent over the declaration of the Palestinian state."

He fears that Israel will give too much. "I would not be surprised if issues such as Jerusalem or the refugees are the price we would pay for these concessions. On the contrary, these issues should constitute a red line for Israelis, one that cannot be crossed."

Israeli claims that, from the early 50s until 1967, it has carried out a program of family reunification, which has brought back some 40,000 to 50,000 refugees. Thousands of others returned between 1967 and 1994. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, Israeli has assisted the "return" of thousands of 1948 refugees to the Palestinian territories, some top-ranking political personalities in the PLO, security forces and their families.

Dr. Salim Tamari, head of the Institute for Jerusalem Studies and refugee affairs expert, says that this kind of symbolic return is as far as Israel will go on this issue. As a result, he thinks talks will break down early.

"It is highly unlikely that there will be any final negotiations on the issue of Palestinian refugees," says Tamari. "The minimum of each side is unacceptable to the other. To the Palestinians, this issue is one of existence and not just a political issue. It is the same thing with Israel, which sees the 'return' as a threat to its security and sovereignty."

Tamari doubts that Israel will even acknowledge the Palestinian right to return. "I do not expect Israel to accept it even in principle. In the past, Israel accepted resolution 194 and voted in its favor at a time when the Arabs were rejecting this resolution because it was based on the principle that the refugees would live with their Jewish neighbors."

Today, he says, we have the opposite situation, with Israel rejecting resolution 194 because it keeps Palestinians and Israelis entwined. "I believe that Israel's [current] rejection of this resolution is just a part of the negotiations in order to extract additional concessions from the Palestinians."

Caught in-between the Palestinian and Israeli positions are the Palestinian refugees in Arab states who remain temporary citizens and subject to separate laws and special circumstances. Most Arab countries (hosts to 70 percent of the refugees) either refuse to or simply cannot absorb the Palestinian refugees on their land. Even in countries like Jordan where Palestinian refugees do enjoy civil rights, refugees are considered a possible source of internal instability and are constantly monitored by the state intelligence services.

As non-citizens or citizens of dubious loyalty, Palestinians remain unable to change their circumstances. Their lives and human and civil rights can only be effected by a change in the political scene, which remains out of their control.

Palestinian refugees have left their homes and property behind, land that constitutes an estimated 92 percent of the Israeli state. From talking to local refugee leaders, it is clear that it would be a grave mistake to believe that Palestinians will abandon that land or the right of return. Even if the Palestinian Authority accepts a compromise solution, they say, they are not willing to end the struggle for a symbolic acceptance of their legitimate rights.