There Is No Basis For A Palestinian “Right of Return”

The single largest issue in the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict is the belief among those Arabs that they have a right to move into towns and houses where grandparents lived many decades ago. They call it a “right of return” and state that it is an individual right laid out in international law.

But the claim is false.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (established December 10, 1948) states in Article 13 that people have certain rights regarding movement:

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

As it relates to the first point, Palestine either was or was not a country before Israel declared itself a state in May 1948. If it was not a country, the UDHR right is irrelevant as it specifically relates only to countries. If it was a state, than the Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank are already part of such state and have no right to move based on the first clause. Their right to move to Israel under the second clause of moving “within the borders of each state” would mean negating the very existence of Israel, a member state of the United Nations, which would undermine the institution upon which the clause exists (rendering such notion impossible).

If Palestine were considered a state pre-Israel, then the descendants of refugees (DORs) in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan could relocate to Gaza or the West Bank (Palestine), but not to Israel.

So under broad international law, there is no right of return for Palestinian Arabs to Israel regardless of whether one thinks Palestine was a country in 1947.

Palestinian Arabs and their supporters therefore try to use a specific clause within a particular UN General Assembly resolution. UNGA Resolution 194, Article 11 states “Resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours 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 and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

This resolution has multiple legal issues regarding applicability.

UN General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, but advisory at the most fundamental. Second, Resolution 194 includes many items including Articles 7 and 8 which places holy places – including those in Nazareth and Jerusalem – under UN control, which neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority desire. One cannot cherry-pick specific items which one side prefers to make a case; the entirety of that resolution is passed its expiration date.

Significantly, the clause itself demands that those refugees desiring to return to “homes” – which may or may not exist anymore – must live in peace with their neighbors. The many wars and pogroms by Palestinian Arabs, including their overwhelming support for Hamas and the October 7 massacre, show them to reject basic coexistence with Jewish neighbors.

Yet UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres makes a mockery of reality and destroys a pathway to peace when he says the opposite. He often states “the need for tangible progress towards a two-State solution based on 1967 lines, with Jerusalem as the capital of both States, in line with UN resolutions and international law.” That clause makes Palestinian Arabs think that millions of Arabs will get to move to Tel Aviv and Haifa. Their frustration of not moving there leads to frustration and causes massacres as seen on October 7.

The United Nations must make clear that there is no “right of return” for any Palestinian Arab to Israel, full stop. The failure to do so causes bloodshed and suffering.