The West forgot to read UN Resolution’s small print

The UN has spoken: a majority of states – 142  versus 10 with 12 abstentions- has approved a Geneal Assembly Resolution to recognise the two-state solution. 

As critics have already pointed out, the Resolution is deeply flawed: no consideration is given to the fact that the Palestinians are split between two geographically separate territories. The new state’s borders are not specified, nor is its government. And there is always the chance that Hamas will still be in control.

But there is a further problem with the Resolution, which has escaped most observers’ notice.

Buried in the text, slipped into the small print, is a commitment to the Palestinian ‘right of return’.

Dr Einat Wilf, who has for fought for years to explain that the Palestinian struggle has always been about destroying the Jewish state, posted the following  on ‘X’ (Twitter): “For anyone who mistakenly thought this was a vision of peace, a true achievement, or Arab and global unity around a positive vision—well, it isn’t. There is nothing here to celebrate. Even if the resolution includes words about Palestine without Hamas and condemnation of the massacre, in the end it preserves the very idea in whose name the massacre was carried out—the idea of “return.”

“Moreover, in Article 39, it even “reiterates,” almost casually, the so-called “right of return” (even though no such right exists, and Resolution 194 does not speak of such a right). By doing so, it essentially cancels out all the preceding clauses and all the nice wording that came before it.”

Article 39 of the Declaration states: “In this regard we decided to explore, in the context of the realization of a sovereign Palestinian State, a regional security architecture that could provide security guarantees for all, building on the experience of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), paving the way for a more stable and secure Middle East, as well as a regional and international framework offering appropriate support to resolving the refugee question, while reiterating the right of return.”

There it is, in black-and-white. The UK, France and other western countries have been suckered into advocating for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Dr  Wilf adds:  “Palestinian leaders can say, and indeed do say, “two states,” and we, ever naïve, assume that one of those two is meant to be the Jewish state. But if you press further and ask them about their stance on the “right of return,” their answer is always, without exception, that the “right of return” is “sacred, non-negotiable, and belongs personally to every Palestinian across generations.” The implication is that, given the millions who claim to hold this “right,” the only “two states” being discussed are: an Arab state in Gaza and the West Bank without Jews, and another Arab state with a Jewish minority.”

Thus the idea that the Palestinian refugees should return to Israel, and not to Palestine, is the very opposite of  the  two-state solution. What is the point of establishing a Palestinian state if the Palestinian refugees still cling to their ultimate objective of returning to Israel?

Apart from the fact that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants would soon turn Israel into a majority-Arab state, little thought is given to the mayhem that such a return would produce.

Refugee questions after such a long lapse of time have not been solved by return. The great majority of Palestinian refugees today never lived in the homes that they are programmed to ‘return’ to. Most might no longer exist. In 2010 the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Greek Cypriots who demanded to return to their properties in the northern part of the island now under Turkish-Cypriot control. As so much time had elapsed since 1974 when the Turks invaded the island, the Court ruled, in the words of Tel Aviv professor Asher Susser, that ‘it was necessary to ensure that the redress offered for these old injuries did not create disproportionate new wrongs’. If this was true for Cyprus since 1974 it is all the more true for Palestine since 1948.

But the issue of the Palestinian refugees needs to be seen alongside the parallel plight of the Jewish refugees, who fled Arab and Muslim countries for Israel in roughly equal numbers at about the same time. A permanent exchange of refugee populations occurred. The last thing the Jews want is a ‘right of return’ to countries which remain as hostile and antisemitic as the day the Jewish refugees fled.

As long as the Right of Return is the cornerstone of the Palestinians’ strategy, the 650,000 Jewish refugees who fled from Arab lands to Israel remain its antidote. Yet the issue of the Jewish refugees is either denied or ignored. When Jewish and Palestinian ‘narratives’ are juxtaposed, the Jewish refugees remain invisible.

To prevent any more ambiguity, the UN must be asked to pass a second resolution demanding that the Palestinians renounce their ‘right of return’ and  recognising that an irrevocable exchange of refugees occurred. Neither set is returning to its country of origin. Otherwise the UN Resolution, as it stands, is a recipe for never-ending war.