The Right of Return and the Refugee Crisis: Political Sabotage vs. Humanitarian Solution

Written By Jerry Elman, October 1, 2024

Introduction:

The right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants remains one of the most complex and politically charged aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike any other refugee group, Palestinian refugees maintain a unique status that is passed down through generations, regardless of where they were born or currently reside. Millions of descendants who have never set foot in either Palestine or Israel continue to be entitled to refugee status and the right of return. This approach, unprecedented in modern refugee history, serves as a political tool aimed at challenging Israel’s sovereignty and demographic stability. Everything in this article has been researched and fact-checked while writing the manuscript for the book Betrayed Promises: Britain’s Role in Making Israel the World’s Scapegoat.

The right of return is not a humanitarian issue. From the beginning, it was weaponized as a means to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state through demographic change if future wars did not achieve that.

This chapter explores the historical origins of the right of return, the role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in perpetuating this status, and how it contrasts with how other global refugee crises—especially following World War II—were resolved. Additionally, the chapter highlights the overlooked plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were resettled without a right of return, underscoring the double standards applied to Palestinian refugees.

1. The Origins and Expansion of the Palestinian Right of Return

The right of return for Palestinians was established following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, during which approximately 700,000–750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes. These refugees sought shelter in neighboring Arab countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Unlike other refugee populations, the Palestinian refugees were not resettled or integrated into these host countries. Instead, they were kept in a state of temporary refugee status, with the promise that they would one day return to their homes within Israel.

Expansion of Refugee Status Across Generations

Unlike any other refugee crisis, the Palestinian refugee issue has been uniquely prolonged by UNRWA’s policy of extending refugee status to all descendants of the original displaced persons. Today, over 5 million Palestinians are considered refugees, even though the majority of them were born in other countries or territories and have never stepped foot in Palestine or Israel. This extension of refugee status has no parallel in international refugee law and represents a departure from all global norms that focus on resettlement and integration.

For example, descendants of World War II refugees, such as Holocaust survivors or ethnic Germans displaced from Eastern Europe, were not granted inherited refugee status. The international response to those crises focused on resettling and integrating displaced populations, allowing them to rebuild their lives. In contrast, UNRWA’s policies have ensured that the Palestinian refugee population continues to grow, keeping the issue alive and unresolved for decades.

2. UNRWA’s Role in Perpetuating Refugee Status and Permanent Camps

The Creation and Mission of UNRWA

Established in 1949, UNRWA is unique in the world of refugee aid. While the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) handles all other global refugee populations, focusing on resettlement and finding permanent solutions, UNRWA’s mission has been to provide services and maintain the status of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Rather than aiming for long-term solutions such as integration into host countries, UNRWA has preserved the refugee status of millions of Palestinians across generations.

Transformation of Refugee Camps into Permanent Settlements

Over time, many Palestinian refugee camps have transformed into permanent towns and cities, with fully functioning infrastructure, homes, and businesses. Despite this urbanization, these areas continue to be classified as “refugee camps,” and their residents still hold refugee status. For instance, the cities of Jenin, Nablus, and certain areas of Gaza are considered refugee camps, even though they have developed into full-fledged urban centers. This perpetuation of refugee status, even in urbanized areas, has created a permanent state of limbo for the residents and keeps the political conflict alive.

An Unprecedented Situation in Refugee History

The situation of Palestinian refugees stands in stark contrast to how other global refugee crises have been addressed. After World War II, tens of millions of people, including Holocaust survivors, ethnic Germans, Poles, Greeks, and Turks, were displaced. In nearly all these cases, the international focus was on resettlement and integration into new countries. By the early 1950s, refugee camps from the World War II era had been dismantled, and displaced persons were absorbed into host societies. No remaining refugee camps from that period exist today, and the descendants of displaced persons did not inherit refugee status.

UNRWA’s policy of maintaining Palestinian refugee camps for nearly 80 years is unprecedented and ensures that the issue remains unresolved. Unlike World War II refugees, who were encouraged to rebuild their lives, Palestinian refugees are kept in a perpetual state of dependency, with the hope that they will one day return to their homes in Israel—a prospect that Israel cannot accept.

Using the Right of Return as a Political Weapon

The Palestinian right of return has evolved into a political tool rather than a humanitarian demand. The insistence that millions of Palestinians and their descendants be allowed to return to Israel is viewed by Israel as an existential threat. The demographic implications of such a return would fundamentally alter Israel’s Jewish majority, leading to its dissolution as a Jewish state. Arab leaders and Palestinian factions have long understood that the right of return, if realized, could achieve through demographics what Arab armies failed to accomplish through the war in 1948—the dismantling of the Jewish state.

For Israel, the right of return is not a legitimate human rights issue. Again, it is a strategic demand to undermine the country’s existence. Accepting the right of return would lead to a demographic shift that would threaten Israel’s Jewish character and political stability, effectively ending Israel as it is known today. That is the exact intent of the right of return.

The Role of Jew-Hatred in Sustaining the Right of Return

The demand for the right of return has been fueled by Jew-hatred in the Arab world. The refusal of Arab states to integrate Palestinian refugees into their societies is rooted in a desire to keep the refugee issue alive as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders have consistently framed the right of return not as a solution to a humanitarian crisis but as part of the broader struggle to reverse the creation of Israel. Jew-hate rhetoric often accompanies this demand, portraying Israel as an illegitimate colonial entity that must be dismantled. The irony is that all Middle Eastern nations are colonial entities created by Britain. Israel is the only one of these colonial nations to fight a war of independence, just like the Americans did against the British. Israel won that war.

The Double Standards in International Refugee Law

Comparison to World War II Refugees and Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

The handling of Palestinian refugees stands in stark contrast to how other refugee crises, particularly those following World War II, have been resolved. Millions of people were displaced during and after the war, including Holocaust survivors and ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe. In these cases, there was no insistence on a right of return. Instead, the focus was on resettling refugees in new countries, helping them rebuild their lives, and ensuring that refugee camps were dismantled as quickly as possible.

Jewish refugees from Arab countries present another example of how the international community has handled displaced populations differently. In the years following Israel’s creation, over 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries, losing their homes, businesses, and property. These Jewish refugees were absorbed primarily by Israel and other countries, with no expectation of a right of return to their former homes in places like Iraq, Egypt, or Yemen. Despite the scale of this displacement, the plight of Jewish refugees has largely been ignored by the international community, which has focused almost exclusively on the Palestinian issue.

The Role of UNRWA in Perpetuating Double Standards

UNRWA’s handling of Palestinian refugees further highlights the double standards applied to this issue. While the UNHCR focuses on resettling and integrating displaced populations, UNRWA has allowed the Palestinian refugee population to grow across generations without offering long-term solutions. This approach has kept the refugee issue alive as a political weapon against Israel, in stark contrast to the treatment of Jewish refugees from Arab countries and other post-World War II refugee populations, who were resettled and integrated into new societies.

5. The Impact of the Right of Return on Peace Negotiations

The right of return has been one of the most significant obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinian leaders have consistently refused to compromise on this demand, knowing that Israel views it as a threat to its existence. As long as the right of return remains a core demand, the prospects for achieving a lasting peace agreement are slim. Israel cannot accept a solution that would result in its demographic and political destruction, and the international community’s failure to address the unrealistic nature of the right of return has prolonged the conflict.

6. Britain Created the Palestinian Refugees, not Israel.

As Britain withdrew from Palestine in 1948, the newly formed State of Israel was immediately attacked by neighboring Arab countries. Israel fought a defensive war for survival. During the Arab-Israeli War, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes. The exact causes of the mass exodus are still a subject of debate. Still, the consequences were clear: a refugee crisis was born, with Palestinians dispersed across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. However, this crisis was no different than any previous refugee crisis in history and was relatively small compared to World Wars I and II refugees.

Britain’s Complicity in the Exodus

Although Britain had relinquished its mandate, its earlier policies and failures were crucial in creating the conditions that led to the Palestinian Arab exodus. By the time Israel declared independence, Britain had failed to establish a functioning framework for cohabitation between Jews and Arabs, leaving a power vacuum that contributed to the chaos. Britain knew war would break out and set the expectations that the Arab nations attacking would defeat and end the existence of Israel as a state.

Britain’s Role in UN Resolution 194 Creating the Right of Return

The Arab demand for the right of return at the end of the war stems directly from this refugee crisis born out of the 1948 war. Britain and the UN gave the Arab states a weaponized refugee issue to perpetuate the conflict with Israel. The right of return became a tool for keeping the conflict alive and prevented a humanitarian solution.

UN Resolution 194, passed in December 1948, is the first-ever formal international acknowledgment of a right of return, stating that Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes have a right to do so. Britain played a major part in drafting the resolution, deliberately making the language ambiguous to allow UNRWA lots of room for interpretation. UNRWA used the loose language to add the requirement that all descendants of these original refugees also have an inherited right of return, no matter where they live or were born.

Israel rejected the call for the right of return due to security concerns and the demographic threat it posed to the Jewish state, along with its lack of any precedent in international law.

Conclusion: A Path Toward Resolution

The right of return for Palestinian refugees, as UNRWA and Palestinian leaders have framed it, is not a legitimate humanitarian issue but a political tool aimed at challenging Israel’s existence. The perpetuation of refugee status across generations, the maintenance of so-called refugee camps for nearly 80 years, and the use of the right of return as a political weapon all point to a broader agenda that prioritizes conflict over resolution.

In contrast, other refugee crises—such as those following World War II—were resolved through resettlement and integration. Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed into new societies without insisting on a right of return. The international community must recognize the double standards applied to Palestinian refugees and shift its focus toward realistic solutions that emphasize resettlement, compensation, and integration. For a lasting peace to be achieved, the right of return must be reframed as part of a broader compromise in line with all precedents in international law, not this one exception. Peace is impossible with a demand that threatens Israel’s existence. The international community must move away from the political weaponization of the right of return and focus on precedent-driven humanitarian solutions that promote stability and reconciliation.