The Controversial “Right of Return” – UN Resolution 194 of 1948

[solutions]

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: The Controversial “Right of Return” – UN Resolution 194 of 1948
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sat, December 9, 2023 1:31 pm MST
To: Solutions
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Thank you for your e-mail of yesterday requesting my views on UN Resolution 194’s controversial “Right of Return.”

**********
Controversial???

A simple Google search for “right of return Palestine” produces 59 million hits in 0.42 seconds, the list headed by –

(1) Palestinian right-of-return - Wikipedia
(2) Right of return of the Palestinian people – United Nations
(3) Israel’s refusal to grant Palestinian refugees right to return… - Amnesty International
(4) Right of return of Palestinian refugees must be priortised… - ohchr.org [Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights]
(6) and (8) Two postings by Human Rights Watch – an international non-governmental organization headquartered (as is the UN) in NYC that conducts research and advocacy on human rights.


**********
FIINDING A DECENT STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION

We have always said that Wikipedia articles are only as good as their footnotes.

However, Wikipedia’s article entitled “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194” is reproduced immediately below --

because it comprises a brief description of some of the salient facts, followed by the actual text of U.N. Resolution 194.

Accordingly, it comprises a fairly-decent foil for discussion.


**********
MY COMMENTS

*****
FIRST, UN Resolution 181 should not be overlooked.

Q&A-25 through Q&A-31 of this month's Short Quiz detail how the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was set up to oversee the termination of the League of Nations’ creation of Britain’s Palestine colony (aka “protectorate”), how UNSCOP made a careful year-long survey of what land was owned by Palestine’s 58.3% Muslim population, and how the result was UN Resolution 181 which comprised the first “two-state solution” since it called for a “Jewish State” and a “Palestinian State” based on UNSCOP’s report of who owned what even though the “Jewish State” and the “Palestinian State” resembled a “checker board” of land ownership.

Israel accepted UN Resolution 181 and on 5/14/1948, following the expiration of Britain’s Palestinian “protectorate,” declared its independence.

It was immediately invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.

So UN Resolution 194 regarding a “right of return” was adopted on 12/11/1948 during the 5/15/1948 - 3/10/1949 war in an attempt IMHO to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

*****
SECOND, Jewish refugees are IMHO always ignored

The UN Resolution 194 “right of return” applies to ALL REFUGEES, not solely Muslims.

Per the United Nations, the 5/15/1948 - 3/10/1949 war resulted in more than 850 thousand Jewish refugees being uprooted from Arab countries, and only 726 thousand Muslim refugees being uprooted from what became Israel – based on U.N. document “Trends and Characteristics of International Migration since 1950 – Refugee Movements and Population Transfers” (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Demographic Study No. 64 ST/ESA/Ser. A/64).

Throughout history, war refugees typically take root in the localities in which they find themselves.

The more-than-850 thousand Jewish refugees have apparently done so.

*****
THIRD, international “agreements” are NOT binding contracts

A core principle of international law is that international “treaties” and mere international “agreements” are NOT binding contracts.

Instead, they are only valid until the parties decide not to abide by them any longer.

[This gets a bit more complicated in the case of multi-lateral international agreements such as the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal with Iran (aka JCPOA) since France, Britain, etc., remained in it even though the U.S. pulled out 5/8/2018. BTW, it was not a “treaty” from a U.S. perspective because Pres. Obama never submitted it to the U.S. Senate for a 2/3 vote, though this had no bearing on the U.S. right to withdraw at any time under international law since the U.S. could even have done the same vis-à-vis a multi-lateral treaty.]

NB: that the immediately-following Wikipedia article states under the “Israeli view” section that Israel rejected UN Resolution 194’s “right of return” until the debate about UN Resolution 273 of 1949 to admit Israel as a member of the United Nations, during which Israel’s UN Representative, Abba Eban, is reported to have said Israel “will co-operate with the organs of the United Nations with all of the means at our disposal in the fulfillment of the resolution concerning refugees [i.e. UN Resolution 194].”

Nevertheless, even if this statement by Abba Eban had been made a condition of Israel’s admission as a member of the United Nations, under international law it would only be binding so long as Israel and the U.N. continued to abide by it.

Since Israel has not abided by it, the only remedy for the U.N. is to expel Israel from membership.

*****
FOURTH, the “right of return” requirement to “live at peace”

The UN Resolution 194 Right of Return, by its terms, applies only to “refugees wishing to return to their homes AND LIVE AT PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.”

The many Palestinian and Arab wars of annihilation, starting on “day one,” do NOT demonstrate convincing evidence that they wish “to live at peace” with Israel. And, indeed, the founding documents of Hamas which rules Gaza, and the post-2000 position of the PLO which rules the West Bank, deny Israel’s “Right to Exist.”

Nevertheless, UN Resolution 194 makes the Right of Return an individual refugee right.

But how could Israel possibly vet each of the 5.9 million Palestinian refugees currently estimated to exist by the U.N. (per CNN at https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/30/us/pales ... index.html)?

And could Israel reasonably accept the risk that any of the 5.9 million who are successfully vetted might nonetheless have unexpressed feelings of rage that might erupt into violence?

BTW, it should be noted that per CBS, as of the end of 2021 -- 1.7 million Muslims were Israeli citizens – they comprise 18.1% of Israel’s population (https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/mediarelease/ ... -2022.aspx).

NB: Yours Truly is NOT attempting to claim that the CBS statistics are a result of a “good faith effort” of the Government of Israel to vet Palestinian refugees – IMHO most of them are descendants of Muslims who did not flee Israel following the 1948 war.

*****
FIFTH, how the Yasser Arafat’s 2000 Peace Agreement Addressed the Right of Return

Q&A-39 and Q&A-40 of this month's Short Quiz record that –

In 2000, President Clinton succeeded in negotiating a “two-state solution” with Israel and Yasser Arafat (Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian National Authority which, at that time, “governed” (subject to Israeli occupation) both Gaza and the West Bank). However, Yasser Arafat reneged on the agreement because, in his Arabic speeches to his Palestinian followers, he had always promised undying enmity toward Israel and promised to never rest until Israel “was thrown into the sea” and, when he returned to Palestine, he found that he hadn’t prepared his followers sufficiently to accept his Peace Plan and that he would be deposed.

Without hopelessly “getting into the weeds,” Wikipedia’s “2000 Camp David Summit” article states re the Right of Return –

“([T]he Palestinians maintained their traditional demand that the right of return be implemented. They demanded that Israel recognize the right of all refugees who so wished to settle in Israel, but to address Israel's demographic concerns, they promised that the right of return would be implemented via a mechanism agreed upon by both sides, which would try to channel a majority of refugees away from the option of returning to Israel. According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of the Palestinian negotiators were willing to privately discuss a limit on the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel.] Palestinians who chose to return to Israel would do so gradually, with Israel absorbing 150,000 refugees every year.” [Footnotes omitted.]”

BTW. 150 thousand/year are fewer than the annual increase in the number of “Palestinian refugees” as defined by the U.N.

*****
SIXTH, my bottom line

As explained in the “third” section above, there is no binding Right of Return under international law.

Accordingly, IMHO it should be left to the Palestinians and Israelis to agree on any repatriations to Israel of Palestinian Refugees –- similarly to what was provided in the 2000 Peace Agreement on which Yasser Arafat reneged (i.e., "similarly" in respect to the two parties negotiating any repatriations -- NOT NECESSARILY "similarly" in respect of the particulars to which Yasser Arafat agreed in 2000 but reneged).

Also IMHO, the world is “in extremis” regarding a looming nuclear holocaust between Israel and Iran so it is time for the U.S. to avoid a “twilight of the humans” by providing the “Marshall Plan” for the Palestinians that President Obama rejected in 2009 (please see Sec. C of the Suggested Discussion Outline at viewtopic.php?f=775&t=2441&sid=efc66bb2 ... 02fee34eac).

*****
Valediction

Thank you again for your e-mail.

Your friend,

John K.


*************************************************************************
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 is a resolution adopted near the end of the 1947–1949 Palestine war. The Resolution defines principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestine refugees to their homes. Article 11 of the resolution 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.[1]

The resolution also calls for the establishment of the United Nations Conciliation Commission to facilitate peace between Israel and Arab states, continuing the efforts of UN Mediator Folke Bernadotte, following his assassination.[2]

Of the 58 members of the United Nations at that time, the resolution was adopted by a majority of 35 countries, with 15 voting against and 8 abstaining. The six Arab League countries then represented at the UN, who were also involved in the war, voted against the resolution. The other significant group which voted against comprised the Communist bloc member countries,[3] all of which had already recognized Israel as a de jure state. Israel was not a member of the United Nations at the time, and objected to many of the resolution's articles. Palestinian representatives likewise rejected Resolution 194.[4]

The resolution, especially Article 11, was cited in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 302 establishing the UNRWA and other UN resolutions. It has been argued that the resolution enshrines a right of return for the Palestinian refugees,[5] a claim that Israel disputes.

Background

During the 1948 Palestine war, around 700,000[fn 1] Palestinian Arabs or 85% of the total population fled or were expelled from the territory Israel conquered.[6] The UN Mediator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, believed that the Palestinians displaced had a right to return to their homes and wrote several UN reports to that effect. On June 28, 1948, during a truce he had arranged,[7] he presented a series of suggestions for a peaceful settlement of the Palestine dispute. One of them was that the UN should recognize "the right of residents of Palestine who, because of conditions created by the conflict there have left their normal places of abode, to return to their homes without restriction and to regain possession of their property."[8] Another was to incorporate Jerusalem into Arab territory which angered the Israelis.[9] In the report he presented on September 16, he wrote:[10]

It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries.

In the report, he argued that "[t]he right of Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date should be affirmed by the United Nations" and that the UN should supervise payment of "adequate compensation for the property" of those choosing not to return.[8] Israel publicly rejected the report, but Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett acknowledged that "t is not so nice or humanitarian to oppose something which is so basic, so simple: a person's right to return to the home from which he has been driven out by force."[8]

While Bernadotte was assassinated by Jewish paramilitaries,[8] his insistence on a right of return for the refugees formed the basis of resolution 194.[11]

Views

See also: Palestinian right of return

Several organizations and individuals believe that resolution 194 enshrines a right for the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in territory that Israel occupied in the 1948 war.[5] The UN General Assembly has reaffirmed Resolution 194 every year since 1949[2] and other UN resolutions have reaffirmed the right of return, including General Assembly Resolution 169 in 1980.[2]

Joshua Muravchik does not believe that resolution 194 enshrines a right of return, pointing out that the text states that the refugees "should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors".[12]

Palestinian and Arab views

The Arab states originally voted against resolution 194, but they began to reverse their position by spring 1949 and soon became its strongest advocates.[13] The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative softened their stance by calling for "a just solution which must also be accepted by Israel."[14]

Palestinian representatives initially rejected resolution 194 because they viewed it as being based on the illegality of the state of Israel. By their reasoning, Israel had no right to prevent the return of the "indigenous Arab people of Palestine".[15] Later, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and other Palestinian organizations has come to view resolution 194 as one source of legal authority for the right of return.[16] In an address in 2009, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated:[17]

This is in order to reach a comprehensive and balanced political solution to the conflict that ... will guarantee the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in accordance with the legitimate international decisions and first and foremost Resolution 194.

Abbas has on other several occasions referred to a "just solution" to the Palestinian refugees "on the basis of Resolution 194".[18] Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee has similarly declared that resolution 194 enshrines a non-negotiable right of return:[19]

One must recognize rights according to international law and Resolution 194 of the United Nations. There is not a single Palestinian who will forgo the rights of the refugees. A leader who will tell you he will do this in order to propitiate you will lose credibility among his own people.

The Palestinian-led[20] BDS movement asserts that Israel must comply with international law by, among other things, "[r]especting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194."[21]

Israeli view

Israel does not believe that it has an obligation to let the refugees return, a view was promulgated by the Israeli leadership even before resolution 194 was adopted. In a cabinet meeting in June 1948 Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion stated: "They [the Palestinians] lost and fled. Their return must now be prevented.... And I will oppose their return also after the war."[22] Ben-Gurion's words were echoed by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir who in 1992 declared that the return of the Palestinian refugees "will never happen in any way, shape or form. There is only a Jewish right of return to the land of Israel."[23]

Israel also argued that it did not have to compensate refugees for land and property that they had abandoned. In a press conference in 1949, Sharett stated:[24]

To help finance resettlement projects in neighbouring countries Israel is prepared to pay compensation for land abandoned in Israel by Arabs who have fled. This, again, can only be arranged as part of a general peace settlement. For when peace is negotiated the payment of compensation by Israel for land abandoned by Arabs will not be the only financial item discussed. Israel will claim damages from the aggressor States for losses sustained as the result of their aggression and the crushing burden of war expenditures inflicted upon its population.

In the debates about UN resolution 273 in 1949 about Israel's admittance to the UN, Israel's UN representative Abba Eban promised that the state would honor its obligations under resolution 181 and resolution 194. El Salvador's representative asked:[25]

I wish to ask the representative of Israel whether he is authorized by his Government to assure the Committee that the State of Israel will do everything in its power to co-operate with the United Nations in order to put into effect (a) the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947 on the internationalization of the City of Jerusalem and the surrounding area [resolution 181] and (b) the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 on the repatriation of the refugees [resolution 194].

Eban replied:[25]

I can give unqualified affirmative answer to the second question as to whether we will co-operate with the organs of the United Nations with all the means at our disposal in the fulfillment of the resolution concerning refugees.

Israel was thus admitted to the United Nations in May 1949 on condition that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the UN Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the UN."[26] But Israel didn't comply with the right of return as reaffirmed in resolution 194.[26]

Israel has, however, offered to repatriate refugees as part of negotiations. At the Lausanne Conference Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab states and for annexation of all territories it had captured up until the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The number would have included 50,000 refugees who had already found their way back to their homes in Israel. The offer was quickly withdrawn by Ben-Gurion.[citation needed] Another offer came during the 2000 Camp David negotiations in which Israel offered to allow a maximum of 100,000 refugees to return, on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification.[27]

Further information: Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process § Camp_David_2000_Summit,_Clinton's_"Parameters,"_and_the_Taba_talks

Polling

The Palestinian people have demonstrated strong support for a right of return based on resolution 194. In a 1999 poll by Elia Zureik, some 61.4% of the Palestinians in Israel said that a proper solution to the refugee issue should be based on resolution 194 and about half found such a solution feasible; in the occupied Palestinian territories, over 80% of the Palestinians considered resolution 194 to be a just solution to the refugee problem, and about 50% thought implementing 194 was feasible. In contrast, fewer than 5% of Jewish Israeli respondents thought resolution 194 was either just or feasible.[28]

Voting results

The result of the voting was the following:[29]

In Favor
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against
Afghanistan, Byelorrusian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Abstaining
Bolivia, Burma, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Iran, Mexico.

Related resolutions

Adopted in the aftermath of the Six-day war in 1967, Security Council Resolution 237 called upon Israel "to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas [occupied by Israel] since the outbreak of hostilities".[30][31]

Full text

The General Assembly,

Having considered further the situation in Palestine,
1. Expresses its deep appreciation of the progress achieved through the good offices of the late United Nations Mediator in promoting a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine, for which cause he sacrificed his life; and Extends its thanks to the Acting Mediator and his staff for their continued efforts and devotion to duty in Palestine;
2. Establishes a Conciliation Commission consisting of three States Members of the United Nations which shall have the following functions:
a. To assume, insofar as it considers necessary in existing circumstances, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine by resolution 186 (S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948;
b. To carry out the specific functions and directives given to it by the present resolution and such additional functions and directives as may be given to it by the General Assembly or by the Security Council;
c. To undertake, upon the request of the Security Council, any of the functions now assigned to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine or to the United Nations Truce Commission by resolutions of the Security Council; upon such request to the Conciliation Commission by the Security Council with respect to all the remaining functions of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine under Security Council resolutions, the office of the Mediator shall be terminated;
3. Decides that a Committee of the Assembly, consisting of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, shall present, before the end of the first part of the present session of the General Assembly, for the approval of the Assembly, a proposal concerning the names of the three States which will constitute the Conciliation Commission;
4. Requests the Commission to begin its functions at once, with a view to the establishment of contact between the parties themselves and the Commission at the earliest possible date;
5. Calls upon the Governments and authorities concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council's resolution of 16 November 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;
6. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to take steps to assist the Government and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;
7. Resolves that the Holy Places—including Nazareth—religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice that arrangements to this end should be under effective United Nations supervision; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposal for a permanent international regime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that territory; that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of Palestine the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them; and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval;
8. Resolves that, in view of its association with three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most Eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most Southern, Bethlehem; the most Western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most Northern, Shu'fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control;
Requests the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem at the earliest possible date;
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to present to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the Jerusalem area which will provide for the maximum local autonomy for distinctive groups consistent with the special international status of the Jerusalem area;
The Conciliation Commission is authorized to appoint a United Nations representative who shall cooperate with the local authorities with respect to the interim administration of the Jerusalem area;
9. Resolves that, pending agreement on more detailed arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned, the freest possible access to Jerusalem by road, rail or air should be accorded to all inhabitants of Palestine; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to report immediately to the Security Council, for appropriate action by that organ, any attempt by any party to impede such access;
10. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to seek arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned which will facilitate the economic development of the area, including arrangements for access to ports and airfields and the use of transportation and communication facilities;
11. Resolves that the 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 in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;
12. Authorizes the Conciliation Commission to appoint such subsidiary bodies and to employ such technical experts, acting under its authority, as it may find necessary for the effective discharge of its functions and responsibilities under the present resolution; The Conciliation Commission will have its official headquarters at Jerusalem. The authorities responsible for maintaining order in Jerusalem will be responsible for taking all measures necessary to ensure the security of the Commission. The Secretary-General will provide a limited number of guards for the protection of the staff and premises of the Commission;
13. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to render progress reports periodically to the Secretary-General for transmission to the Security Council and to the Members of the United Nations;
14. Calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to cooperate with the Conciliation Commission and to take all possible steps to assist in the implementation of the present resolution;
15. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary staff and facilities and to make appropriate arrangements to provide the necessary funds required in carrying out the terms of the present resolution.

See also
• Jewish refugees
• Lausanne Conference of 1949
• List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel
• List of the UN resolutions concerning Palestine
• Palestinian refugees
• United Nations Conciliation Commission
• UNRWA

References

Notes
1. The exact number of refugees is disputed. See List of estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948 for details.

Citations

1. UNRWA.
2. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 169 (1980), Article 66.
3. UNGA 1948.
4. "1948 Refugees." Cambridge University. 21 February 2018. 15 November 2020.
5. Masalha 2003, p. 265: in line with the international consensus enshrined in UN Resolution 194.; UNRWA: FAQ: The right of return is enshrined in UN General Assembly resolution 194.; Hart 2010, p. 135: UN General Assembly Resolution 194 enshrined the right of Palestinian refugees to return; Susser 2017, p. 264: It reiterated the inalienable "right of return" as enshrined in Resolution 194 ...
6. Morris 2001, pp. 252–258.
7. Neff 1995: Bernadotte's first action had been to arrange a truce, which lasted from June 11 to July 9.
8. Rempel 2009.
9. Slonim 1994, p. 582.
10. Bernadotte 1948.
11. Radley 1978, p. 600: The recommendations in his report formed the basis for key resolution 194
12. Muravchik 2015, p. 83.
13. Radley 1978, p. 601.
14. "Resolution 194 ... speaks of the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel. But even the Arab League modified this in 2002, with a new resolution proposing 'a just solution which must also be accepted by Israel.'" Amirav, M. (2007). We must learn from camp david. FT.Com, , 1. Proquest.
15. Radley 1978, p. 600: Palestinian political organizations, on the one hand, have always repudiated the resolution as illegal, being itself based upon the illegality of the state of Israel. ... what right can the illegitimate Jewish state prevent the return of the rightful "indigenous population."
16. Halevi 2010, p. 2: PLO, responsible for conducting diplomatic negotiations with Israel, views UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and the decisions of international institutions as the source of legal authority for the Palestinian demand.
17. Halevi 2010, p. 5.
18. Halevi 2010, p. 5-6.
19. Halevi 2010, p. 13.
20. The Times of Israel 2019: The Strategic Affairs Ministry said the Palestinian-led movement that promotes boycotts against Israel is behind the effort.; Holmes 2019: The event has become a target for the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign; Trew 2019: by activists spearheaded by the Palestinian-led campaign Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS).
21. Hitchcock 2020, p. 9.
22. Shaoul 2001.
23. Neff 1993.
24. Masalha 2003, p. 137.
25. Boyle & 279-80.
26. Farah 2013, p. 160.
27. Samy, Shahira (2010-02-25). Reparations to Palestinian Refugees: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-15426-4.
28. Zureik 1999.
29. UNGA 1948: In favour : Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland. Against : Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt. Abstaining: India, Iran, Mexico, Bolivia, Burma, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala.
30. BADIL 2002, p. 20.
31. UNSC 1967.

Sources
• Radley, Kurt René (1978). "The Palestinian Refugees: The Right to Return in International Law". American Journal of International Law. Cambridge University Press (CUP). 72 (3): 586–614. doi:10.2307/2200460. ISSN 0002-9300. JSTOR 2200460. S2CID 147111254.
• Bernadotte, Folke (16 September 1948). "Progress report (16 September 1948)". UN Mediator on Palestine. Retrieved 17 November 2020.
• Slonim, Shlomo (1994). "Israeli policy on Jerusalem at the United Nations, 1948". Middle Eastern Studies. Informa UK Limited. 30 (3): 579–596. doi:10.1080/00263209408701012. ISSN 0026-3206.
• Neff, Donald (September 1995). "Jewish Terrorists Assassinate U.N. Peacekeeper Count Folke Bernadotte". Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: 83–84.
• Neff, Donald (November–December 1993). "The Passage of U.N. Resolution 194". Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: 84–92.
• Rempel, Terry (2009). "Resolution 194 (III), A Retrospective". Palestine's Ongoing Nakba. BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (39–40). Retrieved 17 November 2020.
• "Resolution 194". UNRWA. Retrieved 17 November 2020.
• Morris, Benny (2001). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab conflict, 1881–2001 (1st Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage Books. pp. 252–258. ISBN 978-0-679-74475-7.
• "A/PV.186". United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. December 11, 1948. Retrieved November 24, 2020.
• "S/RES/237". UNISPAL-United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. June 14, 1967. Retrieved November 25, 2020.
• Hart, Alan (August 13, 2010). Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 2: David Becomes Goliath. SCB Distributors. pp. 135–. ISBN 978-0-932863-79-9.
• Susser, Asher (February 21, 2017). "Historical Narratives and the Issue of Trust". In Ilai Alon; Daniel Bar-Tal (eds.). The Role of Trust in Conflict Resolution: The Israeli-Palestinian Case and Beyond. Springer. pp. 259–269. ISBN 978-3-319-43355-4.
• Farah, Randa (October 31, 2013). Niklaus Steiner; Mark Gibney; Gil Loescher (eds.). Problems of Protection: The UNHCR, Refugees, and Human Rights. Routledge. pp. 160–. ISBN 978-1-135-39548-3.
• Boyle, Francis A. (August 13, 2010). Palestine, Palestinians and International Law. SCB Distributors. pp. 279–. ISBN 978-0-932863-92-8.
• Shaoul, Jean (January 22, 2001). "Zionism's legacy of ethnic cleansing". World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved November 24, 2020.
• Halevi, Jonathan D. (2010). "The Palestinian Refugees on the Day After "Independence"". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
• "BDS-backed Twitter bot network is targeting Eurovision, Israel charges". The Times of Israel. 3 May 2019. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
• Trew, Bel (15 May 2019). "Tourists come face-to-face with Eurovision's darker side: 'No pride in apartheid'". The Independent. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
• Holmes, Oliver (7 May 2019). "Israel says it will not allow in activists planning to 'disturb' Eurovision". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
• Hitchcock, Jennifer Megan (June 29, 2020). A Rhetorical Frame Analysis of Palestinian-Led Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement Discourse. ODU Digital Commons (PhD). Retrieved September 21, 2020.
• "Frequently asked questions". UNRWA. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
• "Right of Return" (PDF). Al-Majdal. BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (14). Summer 2002. Retrieved November 25, 2020.
• Muravchik, Joshua (2015-12-15). Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel. Encounter Books. ISBN 9781594038464.
• Masalha, Nur (October 20, 2003). The Politics of Denial: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-2120-2.
• Zureik, Elia (December 1999). "Public Opinion and Palestinian Refugees". Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet. Retrieved November 25, 2020.

Categories:
• United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerning Israel
• United Nations General Assembly resolutions
• 1948 in law
• Israeli–Palestinian peace process
• 20th century in Jerusalem
• 1948 in the United Nations
• December 1948 events
• 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

This page was last edited on 5 November 2023, at 22:36 (UTC).