REFUGEES’ ‘RIGHT OF RETURN’ TO THEIR HOMELAND, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PALESTINIAN REFUGEES.

Department of Oxford Brooks University United Kingdom LL.M. 2018/19 REFUGEES’ ‘RIGHT OF RETURN’ TO THEIR HOMELAND, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PALESTINIAN REFUGEES. By: Hadil Haroun Louz Abstract   Refugees confront fear, distress, devastating despair, and sometimes misleading optimism because of their vulnerability. However, all refugees are entitled to return to the homelands from which they have fled because of persecution or fear of it. Conventions and provisions of international law stipulate repatriation and/or compensation as sustainable solutions for refugees. This paper introduces the definition of refugees and their Right of Return, and the reasons that prompted the creation of this legally binding, unconditional, and inalienable right and the rule of law in affirming it. The paper will provide a summary survey of how this right has been applied in practice.  The second section of the paper considers the Right of Return as applied to refugees resulting from the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which began more than seventy years ago. The current legal basis of the right of Palestinian refugees as ‘individuals’ to return to their homeland, has been affirmed in many United Nations Resolutions, whether issued by the General Assembly or by the Security Council. The Palestinian Right of Return has never ceased to exist, but this right has been neglected and denied by Israeli practices and policies, destroying the prospect of a viable peace in Palestine. For almost seventy-one years, it has proved impossible to offer a sustainable solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. The main obstacle has been the denial and refusal by the Israeli government of the obligations it has as a Member Stateof the UN, under many UN Resolutions, to facilitate and allow the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland. Some of Israel’s laws have compromised the possibility of refugee return. These include the Israeli Law of Return and its Law of Nationality.   Despite the UN Resolutions, the UN has been ineffective in defending Palestinian refugees’ rights. Palestinian refugees continue to suffer miserable circumstances despite successful UN interventions in other refugee situations. Notwithstanding this selective access to justice, Palestinian refugees have not abandoned their right to return, as illustrated recently by the Great March of Return at the armistice line between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The paper concludes with a consideration of the failure of international law to protect the inalienable right of Palestinian refugees more than seventy years after the beginning of the ethnic cleansing which led to the Palestinian refugee problem. Keywords: Palestine, Israel, Ethnic Cleansing, Refugees, Right of Return, United Nations. Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Refugees and the Right of Return 4 A. Who is a refugee? 4 B. What is the ‘Right of Return’ and why was it established? 7 C. The development of refugees’ ‘Right of Return’ in international law 11 1. The Refugee Convention 1951 13 2. Human Commission on Human Rights (now replaced by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)) 14 3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHDR) 1948: 15 4. Humanitarian Law: The four Geneva Conventions of 1949: 16 5. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966: 16 D. How has the ‘Right of Return’ been implemented? 17 1. The difference between United Nations General Assembly and Security Council powers? 17 a) The General Assembly 17 b) The Security Council 18 2. The Right of Return in UN Resolutions in practice 20 III. Circumstances of Palestinian refugees 25 A. 3.1. The origins of the Palestinian refugee problem 25 1. The promotion of settler-colonialism in Palestine 25 2. United Nations proposing partition of Palestine 29 B. UN Resolutions relevant to repatriation or compensation of Palestinian refugees 34 1. The UN Mediator’s Proposals: 34 2. Resolution 194 36 a) The Right of Return 36 b) Resolution 194 (The UNCCP) 37 3. Resolution 513 40 4. Resolution 237 41 5. Resolution 242 41 6. Resolution 2452A 43 C. Obstacles to applying UN Resolutions relevant to the Palestinian refugee problem 44 D. Israel and the Right of Return 47 1. Implications of Israel’s admission as a UN Member State 49 a) The Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 51 (1) Kafr Bar'am and Iqrit 52 b) Relevant Israeli Laws 54 (1) The Israeli Law of Return 54 (2) The Israeli Nationality Law 55 (3) Absentees' Property Law 56 IV. Conclusion 60 A. What makes the Palestinian case different from those of other refugee populations? 62 B. Who should respond to the Palestinian refugee issue? 64 C. Personal Reflection 67 V. Appendices 71 A. Maps 71 B. Bibliography 73 1. Primary Sources 73 2. Secondary Sources: 75  Introduction   Refugees who have fled from wars, persecution, ethnic cleansing, massacres and other threats to human rights and welfare have to confront fear, distress, devastating despair, and sometimes misleading optimism. Under international laws, provisions and conventions, refugees are entitled to repatriation, compensation for lost property, local integration, and resettlement. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137 (Refugee Convention) Chapter (IX) section (2). See Chapter II C1 of this paper. This paper introduces the definition of refugees and their Right of Return, and the reasons that prompted the creation of this legally binding, unconditional, and inalienable right, and the rule of law affirming it. The paper will provide a summary survey of how this right has been applied in practice. This survey has drawn on law cases, law treaties, UN Resolutions and documents, books, journals, and peer-reviewed articles. The second section of the paper considers the Right of Return as applied to refugees resulting from the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which began more than seventy years ago. The current legal basis of the right of Palestinian refugees as ‘individuals’ to return to their homeland, has been affirmed in many UN Resolutions, whether issued by the General Assembly or by the Security Council. Such as : 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949, 393 (V) and 394 (V) of 2 and 14 December 1950, 512 (VI) and 513 (VI) of 26 January 1952, 614 (VII) of 6 November 1952, 720 (VIII) of 27 November 1953, 818 (IX) of 4 December 1954, 916 (X) of 3 December 1955, 1018 (XI) of 28 February 1957, 1191 (XII) of 12 December 1957, 1315 (XIII) of 12 December 1958, 1456 (XIV) of 9 December 1959, 1604 (XV) of 21 April 1961, 1725 (XVI) of 20 December 1961, 1856 (XVII) of 20 December 1962, 1912 (XVIII) of 3 December 1963, 2002 (XIX) of 10 February 1965, 2052 (XX) of 15 December 1965, 2154 (XXI) of 17 November 1966 and 2341 (XXII) of 19 December 1967 The Palestinian Right of Return has never ceased to exist, but this right has been rejected and abused by Israeli expropriation of Palestinian lands and properties, systematically destroying prospects of Palestinian return. Nur Masalha, The Palestine Nakba : Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory (London: Zed Books 2012).5 Israeli rejection of any Palestinian Right of Return contradicts the principles of the UN Charter for all member states of the UN to facilitate and allow the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland. United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI Chapter I In addition, some of Israel’s laws have compromised the possibility of refugee return. These include the Israeli Law of Return and its Nationality Law (See ‎III.D.1.b). Despite UN Resolutions, the UN has been ineffective in defending Palestinian refugees’ rights. Palestinian refugees continue to suffer miserable circumstances despite successful UN interventions in other refugee situations, for example, in Bosnia and Kosovo (See ‎II.D.2). Notwithstanding this selective access to justice, Palestinian refugees have not abandoned their right to return, as illustrated recently by the Great March of Return at the armistice line between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Al Jazeera, March 2019 <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/gaza-great-march-return-protests-explained-190330074116079.html> last accessed 11 July 2019 Answers to two key questions are needed: 1 - Should the millions of Palestinians whose rights under international law have not been protected resign themselves to refugee status and abandon what appears to have been the cruel illusion that international law represented their route to protection and to the redress of their plight? 2 - Should Palestinians abandon aspirations for nationhood enjoyed by citizens of other nations, and instead accept the reality that laws and legal conventions have not protected their right to self-determination, and seem unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future? The paper concludes with a consideration of the failure of international law to protect the inalienable right of Palestinian refugees more than seventy years after the beginning of the ethnic cleansing which led to the Palestinian refugee problem. Refugees and the Right of Return Who is a refugee? The term ‘refugee’ has been defined in different conventions and provisions in international law such as the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951. The UN Refugee Convention) defines a refugee as a person who: as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (n 1) art 1 In addition to this Convention, the Organization of African Unity has also stated that the term ‘refugee’ shall apply to: every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of nationality. OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (adopted 10 September 1969 entered into force on 20 June 1974) CAB/LEG/24.3 art 1 Palestinian refugees were given a specific definition by the UN for their particular case. United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees, Palestinian Refugees <https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees> accessed 26 June 2019 The definition of Palestinian refugees as articulated and determined by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) is: ‘persons whose normal residence was Palestine between 1 June 1946 and 15 May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 war.’ Ibid. Hannah Arendt pointed to a definition of ‘refugee’ from a moral perspective. She wrote: Man is a social animal and life is not easy for him when social ties are cut off. Moral standards are much easier kept in the texture of society. Hannah Arendt, The Jewish Writings (Jerome Kohn and H. Feldman ed, Schoncken Books, New York 1943) <https://www.jus.uio.no/smr/om/aktuelt/arrangementer/2015/arendt-we-refugees.pdf>.[last accessed 22/08/2019] Arendt’s observation helps to shed light on the social condition of refugees who – living in exile - are deprived of forming strong bonds with their own societies. Refugees the world over, like all ordinary citizens, seek a homeland and a sense of belonging. Refugeehood, in Arendt’s understanding, is a pursuit of dignity. According to Shacknove, what determines refugee status is when bonds with the state, particularly trust, loyalty and assistance, are cut. Andrew E Shacknove, ‘Who Is a Refugee?’, vol 95 (1985).274. She added: ‘Very few individuals have the strength to conserve their own integrity if their social, political and legal status is completely confused’. These dissolved bonds result in persecution and alienation. Ibid. Also, Shacknove considers that persecution and alienation are not the main conditions qualifying someone as having refugee status; they are a subcategory of a broader category. Ibid. Shacknove describes refugees as persons unprotected by their own country for basic needs. He also analyses the status of refugees as persons: who have no remaining recourse other than to seek international restitution of their needs, and who are so situated that international assistance is possible. Ibid. He added: ‘Because this alternative conception of refugeehood accounts more comprehensively than does the current notion for the dual extremes of tyranny and chaos which threaten the normal, minimal bonds of society, it has a stronger claim to moral validity.’ As indicated in the previous definitions from legal, moral and academic perspectives, people become refugees because they leave, or unable to return to, their countries of origin for underlying coercive reasons. Put simply, people do not choose to marginalise themselves or to be refugees. Persecution is one cause of refugeehood. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (n 1) art 1A, According to this Article, the refugee is someone who :’is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.’ Persecution, as defined by Shacknove, is not chosen but results from the force of a colonising power or any power that compels refugees to seek protection. This thesis argues Palestinians were specifically and intentionally targeted and forcibly expelled from their country by Zionist forces during the first Arab-Israeli war of 1947-48. The UN issued relevant Resolutions entitling Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. (n 2) Before the explanation of the current status of these Resolutions and their role in facilitating the repatriation for refugees, it is necessary to present some information about the Right of Return. What is the ‘Right of Return’ and why was it established? Traditionally, all over the world, one of the most severe punishments considered by the jurists and courts has been to send the criminals into exile and ban them from returning to their homeland. Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (1 November 1978) UN Doc ST/SG/SER.F/2 The Right of Return of Palestinian People p.1 It was natural for people to have the right to leave and to return to their own country. Formerly, the Right of Return was internationally affirmed and exercised to the extent that it was unnecessary to endorse or codify it in customary laws because it was considered as self-evident. Ibid The right of people to move freely without restrictions on their return was established without any ‘unjustified interference’ from the government. Ibid ‘Only in the case of criminals was its denial regarded as a justifiable punishment.’ Ibid Although, these days, some refugees, such as the Palestinians, are not criminals, they suffer the same fate as criminals because Palestinian refugees are denied the right to return to their homes (see ‎III.C). During and after the two world wars of the 20th century, the world witnessed countless human tragedies. Violence and persecution have had catastrophic consequences, among which have been massive displacements and deportations of people from their homes. Peter Gaterell asserted: ‘In the aftermath of World War II, population displacements came into close linkage with the “creation and operation of an international refugee regime, meaning in the first instance a set of legal rules, norms, and agreements between sovereign states about refugees and state’s responsibilities towards them’. Peter Gaterell, The making of the Modern Refugee (2013) Oxford University Press p.5 Some of those displaced have remained within the borders of their own country, thus becoming Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Inter-Agency Standing Committee, ‘Growing the Sheltering Tree. Protecting Rights Through Humanitarian Action’ (September 2002) available at <http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/tools_and_guidance/IASC_Growing_Sheltering_Tree_2002_EN.pdf> {last accessed 29 July 2019] p.1 Others – refugees – have fled across international borders in the pursuit of protection. Ibid. The UN Refugee Agency, the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), estimates the number of refugees globally at 25.9 million (20.4 million under the mandate of the UNHCR, and 5.5 million under the mandate of UNRWA for Palestine Refugees). Ibid. The total number of refugees is currently at the highest level ever recorded, and half of the refugees are children. Figures at a Glance, The United Refugee Agency (UNHCR), (2019) <https://www.unhcr.org/ph/figures-at-a-glance> last accessed 29 July 2019 The estimated number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) - 41.3 million - now exceeds the number of refugees. Ibid. In situations of wars and ethnic cleansing in which people flee their own country because of force majeure, the Right of Return for those refugees to their homelands is non-negotiable. Inter-Agency Standing Committee (n 22) p.1 After the atrocities that people witnessed during the two world wars, many legal instruments designed to promote and protect peace in the world were developed. ‘The establishment of the UN, at a time when the Second World War’s repercussions produced vast numbers of refugees, led to efforts to establish the principle of repatriation.’ Ibid, 4. The Right of Return is an individual right that anyone in the world should be able to exercise and this right is addressed as a human rights obligation for states as stipulated in various conventions and provisions such as in the ICCPR and others that will be explained later in this section. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) This right is usually identified as an individual right; however, when an entire land is depopulated of its people as groups, this constitutes a collective dimension, such as the uprooting of Palestinian refugees collectively from their lands. The meaning of the term ‘Return’ is not limited to the physical return to one’s place, but, on a deeper level, it implies a return to one’s ordinary life, culture, traditions, property, lands, villages and towns, society, and jobs. Ghada Karmi and others, Palestinian Exodus, 1948-1998 (1st edn, Ithaca Press 1999) 124 It does not mean a return to a wholly damaged place where everything that once existed is now erased and destroyed. Instead, as emphasised by the Palestinian lawyer Anis Al-Qasem ‘return is material, moral, and cultural in the sense that one would not find in a foreign place.’ ibid. Therefore, ‘Right of Return’ is a metaphorical phrase indicating various intentions, including the return to original lands, community roots, lost properties, dignity, independence, and freedom. Ruba Salih, ‘Palestinian refugees and the politics of return’ [ February-March 2014] The Middle East in London 12 < https://www.soas.ac.uk/lmei/meil/2014/> last accessed 16-09-2019 The indigenous people of a particular country enjoy the right to leave or stay in their homeland. This inalienable right implies the right to a permanent residence for native indigenous persons. Karmi and others (n 31).124 Accordingly, aboriginal people are ‘residents’ who cannot be deprived of their residency in receipt of an order to leave or stay from a higher authority. The original inhabitants have the right to remain, leave, or return whenever they wish because they are indigenous. Also, the inhabitant or native persons of a country should not need a ‘residence permit’ to have access to enter or to leave their country. .Ibid. The inhabitants with a ‘residence permit’ cannot go back home if their permit is expired. Karmi and others (n 31).124 Therefore, issuing residence permits to native people of a particular country is a blatant breach of international law, for example, Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which grants everyone to return to this country. Article 13 confirms in paragraph 1: ‘Everyone has a right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III) (UDHR) art 13. It reads in paragraph 2: ‘Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.’ Nevertheless, such is the case in Palestine. Many Palestinians who live in Israeli-controlled areas – for example, Palestinians living in East Jerusalem – face extreme and inhumane restrictions on movement and travel. Karmi and others (n 31).124 In 1967, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the Israeli authorities issued a residence permit for the Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem. Ibid Israeli-issued residency permits expire periodically and must be renewed in situ, effectively preventing Palestinians from leaving. Those who travel abroad risk losing their status as residents of Jerusalem, and risk being unable to return. Ibid Moreover, some Palestinians who wish to travel to another country are required to sign a paper barring a return to Palestine until a fixed period has expired. Ibid To take my experience as an example as a Palestinian who travelled from Gaza through the Beit-Hanoun border crossing with Israel, to Britain, Israel forced me to sign a paper I would not return to Gaza for at least a year, whatever the circumstances. This policy does not allow me to return or to stay in my place whenever I want. Although I am a refugee in Gaza and I live in a refugee camp, so also are my friends who travelled to Britain or any place in the world to study are not permitted to return until a fixed time has expired. The issue is very complex: my first city in Palestine is Isdud For more information about Isdud: <https://www.palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Isdud/> [las accessed 22/08/2019], but neither I am allowed to go back to Isdud, the town of my father and grandparents, nor can I go back to Gaza, the city where I was born, until a fixed time has expired. My personal experience The development of refugees’ ‘Right of Return’ in international law Under this heading I described the laws as they are, and under heading D2 of this chapter I will show where these laws are applied and implemented. The Right of Return was considered as a ‘natural corollary’ to anyone’s desires to move freely. Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (n 17) p.2 As mentioned before, it was internationally affirmed and exercised to the extent that it was unnecessary to endorse or codify it in customary laws. W. Thomas Mallison and Sally V. Mallison, ‘The Right of Return’ (1980) Vol. 9 No. 3 University of California Press 125 ‘In 1215 A. D., at a time when rights were being questioned in England, the Magna Carta confirmed the Right of Return as a basic right for anyone. Ibid. The Magna Carta confirmed: ‘It shall be lawful in future for anyone to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water.’ (Magna Carta as agreed by King John) Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (n 17) p.2 In the modern age, this right is endowed by conventions and legal instruments such as the Refugee Convention 1951 (Article 1.C), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(Article 13), the Human Commission on Human Rights (Resolution 1988 (LIV), Humanitarian Law - the Fourth Geneva Convention the Protection of Civilians in Time of War 1949 (Article 45), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966 (Article 12). There is an emphatic affirmation of the necessity to guarantee the Right of Return for refugees and on the state of origin to facilitate the process and provide the proper conditions to allow such return in freedom and dignity. This affirmation is also clearly stated in UN Resolutions about the refugee tragedies around the world, such as Resolution 1199 on Kosovo (1998) UNSC Res 1199 (23 September 1998) UN Doc S/RES/1199 (1998) that ensured the Right of Return to civilians who were forced to evacuate their homes as a result of the war. A further explanation about this resolution can be found in Chapter II B2 of this paper. Moreover, under Article 42 of the Charter of the United Nation, State parties have to commit to all the obligations to the UN principles, and in case of non-compliance, the State member is subject to sanctions and other provisional measures as stipulated (see ‎II.D.1.b). Charter of the United Nations (n 4) chapter VII art.40,41,42. The Refugee Convention 1951 The refugee Convention constitutes the right to return through the emphasis it puts on voluntary repatriation as the preferred solution of ‘three durable solutions’ to handle the refugee crisis. Executive Committee Conclusions No. 29 (XXXIV) (1983), No. 50 (XXXIX) (1988), No. 58 (XL) (1989), No. 79 (XLVII) (1996), No. 81 (XLVIII) (1997), No. 85 (XLIX) (1998), No. 87 (L) (1999), No. 89 (L) (2000), and No. 90 (LII) (2001). The other two favoured solutions are the local integration and resettlement in third countries. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (n 1) ch.IX section 2. Refugee law concentrates on ‘voluntary repatriations’; accompanied by ‘the right not to be returned, or forcibly repatriated’. Lex Takkenberg, The Status of Rights of Palestinians in International Law (1948); York: Oxford University Press, 1998) p. 233 para.2. Article 1.C of the Convention provides conditions for what is known as ‘cessation clauses’, which means that international protection for refugees ceases under some conditions. GUIDELINES ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION: Cessation of Refugee Status under Article 1C(5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Ceased Circumstances” Clauses) The ‘cessation clauses’ applied only when the refugee Ibid 1- continues to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality.’ 2- having lost his nationality, has voluntarily re-acquired it, or 3- voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained. [Emphasis added] 4- Being a person who has no nationality because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence. [Emphasis added] These ‘cessation clauses’ are very significant provisions that stipulate a refugees’ Right of Return to their countries or the places where they remained. It is essential to highlight that these clauses use concepts such as ‘country’ and ‘former habitual residence’ to refer to the home of the returning refugees rather than using the ‘state’ or ‘country of nationality’. It does not condition that the returning refugees should have a nationality of the country where they used to live. Human Commission on Human Rights (now replaced by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)) The UN Commission on Human Rights was founded in 1946. United Nations Human Rights Council, <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CHR/Pages/Membership.aspx> last accessed 23/08/2019It aimed to create an international legal framework to sustain people’s fundamental rights and freedoms. It focused on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine. Ibid It is composed of 53 member states selected by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Ibid ECOSOC issued a draft declaration on the right to return under Resolution 1988 (LIV) because it recognised the denial by some states of refugees’ Right to Return. The Resolution reads: (a)Everyone is entitled, without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions….to return to his country. (b)No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or forced to renounce his nationality as a means of divesting him of the right to return to his country. (c)No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. (d)No one shall be denied the right to return to his own country on the ground that he has no passport or other travel documents. Economic and Social Council Resolution 1988 (LIV) of 18 May 1973. See also the UN Doc. ST/SG/SER./2 In regards to this resolution, people are equal, whatever their beliefs, origins, or colour in having a right to return to their homeland. The Resolution also confirms that it is illegal to forbid the entrance of these people into their countries or block their return by using polices to force them not to return. Moreover, it is essential to highlight that this Resolution also affirmed that everyone is entitled to enter ‘his own country’ as affirmed previously in the refugee convention. This is thus another affirmation that proves that no conditions are applied relating to the nationality of the returnee to enter his country. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHDR) 1948: The UHDR is based on the perspective that the ‘rule of law’ should protect every human being. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (n 55) the Preamble It represents significant progress made by the UN to have established legal norms of human rights to promote freedom, peace, and integrity as inherent elements in human life. Representatives drafted the general principles of law in the Declaration. With various ‘legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, it set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.’ United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/UDHRIndex.aspx> Last accessed 23-08-2019 The Declaration’s moral authority should be definitive and unquestioned; however, as expressed by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ‘the general principles of law are recognised by civilised nations.’ United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (18-04-1946) art. 38 As understood within the meaning of Article 38, the Declaration’s affirmations are not binding; nevertheless, the ICJ can sometimes use these affirmations to ‘bind states on the basis of custom through a general practice accepted as law.’ The International Court of Justice, ‘Legal consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Resolution 267 (1970)’ I.C.J Reports, 1971- pp.77-78 (See Chapter 2B) Humanitarian Law: The four Geneva Conventions of 1949: Several specific provisions have been affirmed in the four Geneva Conventions to protect the repatriation of victims of armed conflict. For example, Article 45 of the fourth Convention states: Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention. This provision shall in no way constitute an obstacle to the repatriation of protected persons or their return to their country of residence after the cessation of hostilities. Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (2nd part) (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) art 45 <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtectionOfCivilianPersons.aspx> last accessed 23-08-2019 In addition to paragraph II, Article 49 of the fourth Convention confirms that: ‘Persons … evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.’ Ibid. Article 49 This Convention thus manifestly declares the indisputable right of victims of wars to be repatriated to the country in which they used to reside. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966: The ICCPR was adopted on 16 December 1966 and came into force on 23 March 1976 in conformity with Article 49 of the Covenant. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) It is derived from the UDHR and confirmed by the UN General Assembly. Ibid Under Article 12 of the Covenant, it asserts the Right of Return for everyone to their ‘own country’. Ibid, art 12 The Article establishes the principle of repatriation to be to one’s ‘own country’, which is, as affirmed before, a broad meaning that does not restrict somebody to limited criteria for the place of return. Article 12 reads within paragraph 2 that ‘Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own…’ and paragraph 4: ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.’ Ibid How has the ‘Right of Return’ been implemented? The difference between United Nations General Assembly and Security Council powers? The UN Charter established six principal organs of the UN that are relevant to the protection of international human rights law. Charter of the United Nations (n 4) art. 7 Two of these major organs are the General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly The declarations of the General Assembly can be adopted either by a two-thirds majority, or a simple majority. Ibid, art. 8 Decisions concerning international peace and security, or the admission of new Member States, for example, require a two-thirds majority, while decisions on other subjects require a simple majority. Ibid Over the past few years, decisions were taken by consensus, instead of taking a formal vote. United Nations, ‘United Nations at a Glance’ New York (2012) 23 The Resolutions of the General Assembly are not legally binding upon the Member States of the UN, and these Resolutions are only recommendations that do not constitute a legal obligation on the Member States but require a moral obligation. United Nation General Assembly, Thirty-fifth session (3 July 1980) A/35/316-S/14045, P5 The UN Charter limits the powers of the General Assembly as being ‘merely recommendatory’. Ibid. The Security Council The Security Council is more authoritative than the General Assembly. United Nations, ‘Protect Human Rights’ <https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/protect-human-rights/> [Last accessed 19th August 2019] Like all UN organs, it aims to sustain world peace and security. The UN Charter empowers the Security Council to act with regard to grave human rights violations. Ibid. The Security Council can ‘investigate and mediate, dispatch a mission, appoint special envoys, or request the Secretary-General to use his good offices’. Ibid In times of conflict, the Security Council can ‘issue a ceasefire directive, dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force’. Ibid.  When none of the interventions of the Security Council solves the conflict, the Security Council can adopt provisional (enforcement) measures under the seventh chapter of the Charter, such as ‘economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, travel bans, the severance of diplomatic relations, a blockade, or even collective military action.’ Ibid. Under Article 25 of the Charter, the Security Council can create legally binding obligations on Member States. Charter of the United Nations (n 4) art. 25 Article 25 reads: ‘The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter’. Ibid. Its resolutions are legally binding, to the extent to which they are adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter designated as ‘action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression’. Charter of the United Nations (n 4) chapter VII The Member States in the UN have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with the UN Charter. According to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, if there is a breach of the Charter’s principles by Member States, some effective provisional measures must be taken by the UN to ensure Member States’ fulfilment of their obligations. Ibid When the UN issues a Security Council Resolution, this confirms the existence of a serious threat to a just and lasting peace, opening the way for the Security Council to take action under Chapter VII ‘to restore international peace and security’ and to protect human rights. <https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/information> Last accessed 30/08/2019 The Permanent Members of the Security Council can use the Veto to reject a Resolution. A veto in the United Nations Security Council is the negative vote of a Permanent Member cast during consideration of a substantive issue so that the draft resolution is not adopted. A vetoed draft resolution had to have 7 positive votes out of 11 before the end of 1965 and 9 votes out of 15 after 1965 (ie the draft resolution would have been passed if the Permanent Member’s negative vote had not been cast). Procedural issues are not subject to veto. When there is disagreement between Council members on whether an issue is procedural or substantive, the question is itself treated as substantive and therefore subject to veto; the so-called “double veto” Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘Vetoed Draft Resolutions in the United Nations Security Council 1946-2012’ (3 September 2012) The above-mentioned provisional measures can take different forms, depending on the case itself and what it requires. Under Article 41 of the Charter, sanctions include a variety of enforcement options, without ‘involving the use of armed force’. (Charter of the United Nations (n 4) art. 41 According to Article 41, such measures ‘may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.’ Charter of the United Nations (n 4) art.29. Under Article 29 of the United Nations Charter entitles, the Security Council is entitled to establish ‘such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.’ Pursuant to Article 29 of the Charter, the Security Council established subsidiary organs that are necessary to implement its functions, including Sanctions Committees, and each committee is ‘chaired by a non-permanent member of the Security Council’. United Nations Security Council, ‘Subsidiary Organs of the United Nations Security Council’ (8 February 2019) , <https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/committees-working-groups-and-ad-hoc-bodies.> Last accessed 24 August 2019 p.4 The Security Council has adopted 30 sanctions against regimes since 1966 such as in Southern Rhodesia and South Africa, to name a few. (in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban) The Right of Return in UN Resolutions in practice The Right of Return has been addressed in several UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions to solve various refugee crises. For example, UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) on Palestine, Resolution 688 (1991) on Iraq, Resolution 819 (1993) on Bosnia, and Resolution 1199 (1998) on Kosovo. UNSC Res 688 (1991) UN Doc. S/RES/688 (1991), UNSC Res 819 UN Doc.(1993) S/RES/819, UNSC Res 1199 (1998) UN Doc.S/RES/1199, UNSC Res 242 (1967) UN Doc.S/RES/242 These Resolutions condemned unlawful practices leading to the forced eviction of civilians, expressed its concern about the flow of refugees and emphasised the refugees’ Right of Return. For example, UNSC Resolution 1199 expressed its deep concern regarding the displacement of 230,000 refugees from Kosovo into northern Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and other European countries as a result of the use of force in Kosovo. UNSC Res. 1199 (1998) [The situation in Kosovo], 23 September 1998, UN Doc.S/RES/1199 (1998) The Security Council recalled Resolution 1160 of 31 March 1998 and reaffirmed ‘the right of all refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in safety and underlining the responsibility of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for creating the conditions which allow them to do so.’ Ibid. The role of the UN Security Council was not limited to condemning the atrocities associated with refugee flows. The UN also acted on the ground under chapter VII of the UN Charter by taking some measures to facilitate the honourable and safe repatriation for refugees. Ibid. Resolution 1199 asserted the necessity of acting under the Chapter VII of the Charter. Ibid It emphasised in paragraphs 4 (C) and 5 (D) (E) that the refugees should be granted proper access to humanitarian support and that their repatriation should be facilitated. Ibid Paragraph 4 reads: to facilitate, in agreement with the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the safe return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes. Ibid. Paragraph 5 adds: to ensure full and unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations, the ICRC and the UNHCR, and delivery of humanitarian supplies. to facilitate the unimpeded return of refugees and displaced persons under programmes agreed with the UNHCR and the ICRC, providing State aid for the reconstruction of destroyed homes, and calls for the full implementation of these commitments. On 22 June 1999, the UNHCR acted on the ground and announced the success of the return of more than 170,000 refugees from Balkan countries (Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro) to their homes in Kosovo within only 9 days. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, <https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/briefing/1999/6/3ae6b82760/kosovo-170000-return-9-days.html> Last accessed 24 August 2019 Another example of UN action was during the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia between 1990-1993. Karmi and others (n 31). The United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and the international relief and refugee organizations were on the ground supporting victims with medical supplies and dealing with the displacement of people. Ibid. The UN intervened to resolve the refugee issue during the conflict and initiated a reconstruction system. Ibid. This intervention represents a success story in guaranteeing the Right of Return for refugees by means of proper implementation by the UN of the laws of return. Although there are some encouraging successful interventions with regard to the repatriation of refugees under the UN system, there is one long-standing and glaring exception to the UN’s success in securing implementation of the Right of Return – the Palestinian Refugee situation. The Right of Return has been systematically denied to Palestinian refugees since the ethnic cleansing events of 1947 and 1948. In the case of the Palestinian refugee problem, UN declarations and their implementation under Chapter VII of the UN Charter have been hampered by a discriminatory system (see ‎III.C). Karmi and others (n 31). Anis Al-Qasem has highlighted the discriminatory approach by the UN in respect of the Right of Return for Palestinians in comparison to other refugees in the world. He says: ‘In our day, we have witnessed in Bosnia the return of people in their cities, villages, homes, and communities from where they had been expelled or forced to leave by hostilities. Other parts of the same country may not qualify as ‘home’; the return must be what was home. The case was the same with the Rwandan Refugees. They were returned not only to their own country but also to the places they considered as their homes in that country. To conclude, refugees who were forcibly expelled from their homelands are entitled to the Right of Return. The Right of Return is confirmed in several international conventions that used as sources for issuing the UNGA and UNSC Resolutions against State parties that violate the provisions of these conventions. The UNSC resolutions can force the Member States to compel with its obligations while the UNGA resolutions are only recommendations that has no powerful authority. It has been shown in this chapter that there are ‘provisional measures’ which can be used by the Security Council to force the concerned states to abide by its obligations. In order to understand the particular circumstances of the Palestinians in the discussion that follows, I draw heavily on Shakenove’s concept of persecution, as well as Arendt’s notion of human dignity. In addition, I emphasis on how Israel as a Member State in the UN deprive the vanquished Palestinian refugees of their Right of Return and make them homeless and stateless. And how Israel formulated laws that confiscate the property of Palestinian refugees and hamper their return to their lands. Questions must be raised here and will be answered in the following chapter: What are the roots of the Palestinian refugees’ problem? How many UNSC and UNGA resolutions has been created in favour of the Palestinian return to their land? How did these resolutions enforce on the ground? Did the Security Council force sanctions against Israel for the non-compliance with its obligations? And How did Israel manipulate the international law to postpone the return of Palestinian refugees? Circumstances of Palestinian refugees 3.1. The origins of the Palestinian refugee problem The promotion of settler-colonialism in Palestine The 19th century witnessed a proliferation of nation-states. This trend, combined with widespread anti-Semitism (hatred of and/or discrimination against Jews) in Europe, led Theodore Herzl – an Austrian Jew - to propose the creation of a Jewish state to address anti-Semitism. David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch : The Roots of Violence in the Middle East (Futura Publications Limited 1978). P.16 Although Herzl made no specific recommendations for a location of the Jewish state he had proposed, it became increasingly clear that, because Palestine – and Zion (Jerusalem) in particular - was part of Jewish culture and ‘sentimental heritage’, Palestine should be the location for the proposed state. Ibid. ‘Political Zionism’ (as the settler-colonialist movement came to be known) was formally born at the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. Ibid. The conference called for Jewish immigrants to Palestine to establish a home for Jews in Palestine ‘secured by public law’. Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall : Israel and the Arab World. Penguin (20 Oct. 2014) P.3 To support this colonial endeavour, a Jewish National Fund (JNF) was established to secure Jewish properties and lands in Palestine and to ensure that they were not sold or leased to non-Jews, and that only Jews would be hired to work on Jewish-owned properties, and that Arab guards would be replaced by Jewish guards. ibid.148 Imperial support for Zionist settler-colonisation of Palestine was needed to create the circumstances needed to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Between 1922 and 1948 Britain became the imperial guarantor of the Zionist project under the aegis of the League of Nations. Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922, Seeds of Conflict, Jhon Murray, London, 1972. P.73 The award of the League of Nations mandate for Palestine to Britain built on two critical British government documents: the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), Marina Ottaway and Julia Craig Romano, ‘OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES Learning from Sykes-Picot’ (2015) 1. which divided between Britain and France the Arab territories expected to become available with the predicted collapse of the Ottoman Empire; and the text of a letter sent in 1917 by the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, to the head of Anglo-Jewry, Baron Rothschild. Hirst (n 105).p.38 The letter reads as follows: His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. Ibid. He added: ‘ it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country’. The text of the Balfour Declaration was incorporated in the League of Nations document assigning its Mandate for Palestine to Britain from 1922. Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist who was to become the first president of Israel, subsequently observed that: ‘The Balfour Declaration is the golden key that unlocks the doors of Palestine and gives you the possibility to put all your efforts into the country… We were asked to formulate our wishes. We said we desired to create in Palestine such conditions, political, economic and administrative, that as the country is developed, we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally to establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine should be as Jewish as England is English, or America is American. I hope that the Jewish frontiers of Palestine will be as great as Jewish energy for getting Palestine.’ Chaim Weizmann, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann: August 1898-July 1931. P.257 The League of Nations Mandatory system was intended to prevent imperial and colonial exploitation of the mandated territories and to assist in developing the territories for the well-being of their native peoples. Matz, Nele. "Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations as Origin of Trusteeship." Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (2005) p. 70-71 While committed by the Balfour Declaration to support the creation of an ill-defined ‘national home’ for the Jews, Britain was thus supposed to support the rights of the majority indigenous Arabs (Moslem, Christian and Jews) in Palestine. As it was, from the very beginning of its Mandate, Britain contributed significantly to the development of the Zionists' colonialist aspirations. James Renton, The Zionist Masquerade: The Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance, 1914-1918 (2007) 155 He also said: ‘there was a certain continuity between the history of the Mandate and the making of the Balfour Declaration. However, the eventual result of the Mandate, in which the Zionist movement came to undermine and supersede the rule of its protector [Britain] in less than a generation, could not have been further from the aims of those who were responsible for the letter that became known as the Balfour Declaration.’ Throughout the Mandate, indigenous Palestinian Arabs repeatedly protested at these developments and submitted petitions to the High Commissioner and the government against the immigration of Jewish colonists and the takeover of indigenous Palestinian lands. Hirst (n 105).27 The failure of these non-violent ways of protesting this settler-colonialism led eventually to a Palestinian Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939, which was directed against both the Zionists and the British. Walid Khalidi, ‘ed., From Haven to Conquest’ Beirut (1971) P. 846–9 The revolt was brutally suppressed by the British troops and Zionists armed by Britain. Ibid. With the failure of indigenous Palestinians to secure the rights of self-determination envisaged in the League of Nations mandatory system by non-military and military means, the Zionists turned their attention to attacking Britain, the imperial facilitator of Zionism and now the principal obstacle standing in the way of the creation of a Zionist state. Renton (n 114) P. 110 These attacks led Britain to indicate in 1947 that it wished to hand over responsibility for Palestine to the UN. Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld (2006). 31 The UN proposed dividing Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. UNGA Res. 181(1947), UN Doc.A/RES/181(II) This established the basis for achieving the principal objective of the Zionist movement, but a Zionist state would need a Jewish majority population. Shlaim (n 108).26 To meet this need, ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of Palestine was required to turn a majority Arab geography into a majority Jewish one. Pappé (n 121).35 This ethnic cleansing began in 1947 and accelerated the following year during the first Arab-Israeli war. Ibid.Xiii The Palestinian refugee problem was born with the expulsion or flight from the danger of between 700,000 and 800,000 Palestinian Arabs Ibid.Xiii, and the Zionist razing of over 650 of their villages. Salman Abu Sitta, ‘The Denied Inheritance: Palestinian Land Ownership in Beer Sheba’ p.2 available at < https://www.academia.edu/5294952/The_Denied_Inheritance_Palestinian_Land_Ownership_in_Beer_Sheba> last accessed 19-09-2019 Pappé has estimated that 85% of the Palestinians who were living in the area which is now called Israel became refugees. (See ‎I.A). The map shows the number of refugees expelled among the Nakba and the areas where they fled from and to.Nearly one-third of the registered Palestinian refugees, more than 1.5 million individuals, live in 58 recognised Palestinian refugee camps. These camps are in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees (n 8) United Nations proposing partition of Palestine Britain’s attempts to find a sustainable solution to the conflicts were doomed to failure because of Zionist riots and the firm Arab rejection to Britain’s proposals. Ilan Pappé asserts: Earlier, the British had put forward several other options, notably the creation of a bi-national state, which the Jews had rejected, and a cantonised Palestine (following the Swiss model), which both sides had refused to consider. Pappé (n 121).31 Britain gave up its efforts to find a resolution of the conflict. In February 1947 the British foreign secretary Ernest Bevin handed over the Palestine problem to the UN. Ibid. Shlaim considers the UN Partition plan represents ‘a major triumph for Zionist diplomacy.’ Shlaim (n 108).26 Also, Pappé describes that the UN ‘Favoured by the Zionist leadership’. Pappé (n 121).31 He added: ‘, and now backed by Britain, partition became the name of the game. The interests of the Palestinians were soon almost totally excised from the process.’ The UN decision of partitioning evoked violence between Arabs and Jewish people. The UN at this period was only two years old yet agreed to partition a nation that was already full of inhabitants. Ibid. The Arab High Committee rejected the UN Partition Plan and condemned it as ‘absurd, impracticable, and unjust.’ Shlaim (n 108).26 On the other hand, most of the Jews welcomed the plan ‘with jubilation and rejoicing.’ Ibid. A special Committee for Palestine (UNSCOP) was established ‘to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future government of Palestine.’ UNGA Res. 181(1947), UN Doc.A/RES/181(II)This gave the Committee responsibility of proposing the fate of the future of Palestine. The UNSCOP was supposed to study the problem and provide proposals. It favoured and sponsored the decision of partitioning Palestine ‘with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee’. Ibid. The UNSCOP recommended, in a report to the General Assembly, to partition Palestine: one for Arab Palestinians, the other for Jews, with Jerusalem considered as ‘corpus separatum (separate entity) to be controlled under a special international regime.’ Ibid. The UNSCOP proposal accepted and the General Assembly issued Resolution 181 in 1947. Ibid. Resolution 181 carries significant implications that shaped the modern history of Palestine. It declared the termination of the Mandate for Palestine no later than August 1948 and to situate a proper area for the Jewish people where they can also facilitate and receive more Jews immigrating through a seaport. Ibid. The Resolution asserts Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. Ibid. The Resolution passed with thirty-three votes in favour, thirteen against, and ten abstentions. Ibid. It aims to establish a Jewish State in Palestine based on the law, despite the refusal of the inhabitants of Palestine. The Resolution was unequal and unfair for the following reasons: The Resolution ignored the Palestinian objection to the partition plan, and this is a breach of the Palestinian fundamental rights. The Resolution did not divide the land justly but gave the minority (Jews) more than half of the land and less than the proportion that was given to the indigenous people who were the majority in their homeland. Israel/Palestine Population in 1947 The percentage of the given territory Israel 498,000 Jews (37.5) % 57% Palestine 818,000 Palestinians and 10,000 Jews included (65.6) % 43% The map indicates in brown the territories allocated for Arabs and with blue shows the areas allocated for Jews. (See ‎V.A map 1) The inequality did not exist only in the denial of the ethnic composition of the population but also, in the kind of land offered to Palestinians, which were ‘unfit for agriculture.’ Shourideh C Molavi, 'Stateless Citizenship : The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel' (2013). p.126 The release of this Resolution was supposed to solve the complicated situation; on the contrary, it provoked violence and exacerbated tensions between Arabs and Jews and ‘directly caused the country to deteriorate into one of the most violent phases in its history.’ Pappé (n 121).31 An unethical and unconscionable aspect of the Resolution was that it did not include any provision to protect Palestinians from ethnic cleansing nor guarantee their rights to stay in their homeland. ‘the resolution was invalid ab initio, violating the Mandate for Palestine’. United Nation General Assembly, Thirty-fifth session (n 74) p.15 The adoption of Resolution 181 heralded the catastrophe (Nakba) in 1948. The Resolution aimed primarily to establish ‘legally’ a Jewish State in Palestine (emphasis added). ‘The imminence of partition led to the escalation of the prevailing violence into full-scale war, involving the neighbouring Arab States.’ Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (n 17) p.2 Despite the rejection of the inhabitants of Palestine, the UN issued the Resolution. Therefore ‘the UN members who voted in favour of the Partition Resolution contributed directly to the crime that was about to happen.’ Pappé (n 121).35. To conclude, tensions between Arabs and Jews in Palestine began with the implementation of the Zionists’ aspirations, the withdrawal of the British Mandate and the prominent immigration of Jews into Palestine, but Resolution 181 strengthened the rejection of the partition by the Arabs. Hirst (n 105).133-137. Hirst in these pages described in detail the planned strategies of Haganah and Zionists army to defeat the Arabs and the Arabs reactions. He disrespected the UN for its decision, he provided:’ The UN had been illogical; the creature which it brought forth was vigorous, but the conditions imposed upon it almost denied it the means of survival. The creature was bound to grow, to throw off its crippling handicaps, to achieve its full Zionist stature. Israel more than any other nation, is the child of the UN…’ P.133. As a result, the chaos started and the wars between Arabs and Israel have raised causing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Pappé (n 121).33 The United Nations role in partitioning Palestine was illogical and unjust. In spite of the fact that resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution, but it was effectively applied on the ground. However, the UNGA and UNSC resolutions that issued in favour of Palestinians refugees’ return were ineffective. The following discussion shows how Palestinians enjoy popular support in the General Assembly. In addition, few times, they enjoyed the Security Council support, but their aspirations are repeatedly cut short at the last moment by US vetoes. UN Resolutions relevant to repatriation or compensation of Palestinian refugees ‘The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign power to other people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict, their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of continuing conflict.’ (Bertrand Russell, 1952) Written by British Philosopher and political activist, Bertrand Russell. This message is the last message written by the British Philosopher and political activist Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell. He sent this message to the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo in 31st of January 1970, and was read on 3rd of February, the day after Russell’s death. Francis A. Boyle, The Palestinian Right of Return in International Law. And see Ron Forthofer, ‘Palestine: The Crime of Partition - Palestine Chronicle’ <http://www.palestinechronicle.com/palestine-the-crime-of-partition/> This letter was written more than 49 years ago, and the issue of the Palestinian refugees is still not settled. The Israeli strategy in forcing the Palestinians to flee was by conquering their land and making them homeless. Israel’s permission to the United Nations as a Member State was conditioned by facilitating the return of Palestinian refugees (See ‎III.D.1). However, Israel seized every opportunity to launch wars (such as 1948 and 1967 wars) and increase the number of refugees without a practical fulfilment to the UN principles. The following discussion shows some of several dozens of UNGA and UNSC resolutions that has confirmed the Right of Return of Palestinian people to their homes, but none has been effectively applied. The UN Mediator’s Proposals: The tragedy of the Palestinian refugees was drawn to the attention of the UN through proposals that were recommended and written by Count Bernadotte, the UN Security Council Mediator in Palestine of 1947-1948, who ‘was assassinated on Friday 17 September 1948 by members of the armed Jewish Zionist group LEHI (commonly known as the Stern Gang or Stern Group)’. Amitzur Ilan, Bernadotte in Palestine Palgrave Macmillan UK (1948) p. 193 Despite Bernadotte’s help and support for the Jews who suffered the holocaust, they killed him because he declared to the UN the necessity of affirming and applying the Right of Return to the Palestinian refugees. Ibid. He proposed: The right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date should be affirmed by the UN, and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return, should be supervised and assisted by the United Nations Conciliation Commission.. Ibid Bernadotte asked for affirmation to guarantee the right of refugees to be repatriated to their homes which were under the ‘Jewish control’. It is essential to highlight that he did not create a new law concerning the return but recommended that the Right of Return had to be affirmed by the UN. Anis Al-Qasem, a respected Palestinian lawyer, explains regarding Bernadotte’s recommendation, that it does not matter if the homes of refugees are now under Jewish control or not, because it could not, in law, deny them their Right of Return. Karmi and others (n 31). As understood from Bernadotte’s proposal, it is the choice of refugees themselves to decide to return to a Jewish controlled area or not and to be compensated or not. Consistent with Bernadotte’s proposals and his progress report, the UN General Assembly regarding the Right of Return as an existing right. Resolution 194 The Right of Return The General Assembly adopted and declared Resolution 194 (III), proposing 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. UNGA Res. 194 (1948) UN Doc.A/RES/194 (III)  The Resolution considers many vital points about the Palestinian refugees’ plight, and one of them is the Right of Return to their homes at the earliest practicable date and receiving compensation for their damaged properties. It categorises refugees in two groups, depending on their choice either return or not to return. They can be resituated, repatriated, and compensated for their lost properties or to be resettled, rehabilitated, and compensated; and their rights would have to be considered seriously and respected by the concerned state under principles of international law and in equity. UNGA Res. 194 (1948) UN Doc.A/RES/194 (III)  Moreover, the Resolution confirms the return ‘to their homes’, that is, refugees have a clear right to return to their homes as they used to live in their regular life previously, even if their place is now considered a Jewish-controlled area. Furthermore, refugees who wish to return must be ready ‘to live at peace with [his] neighbours’, so every individual has to be responsible for his/her acts toward his/her neighbours. If he/she violates this provision, he/she will be subjected to law. Simultaneously, there should not be any assumption of misconduct by refugees with their neighbours and conditioning their right to return on these bases. Ibid. Currently, there are many Palestinians within Israel who live in peace with their neighbours, so the assumption of violent acts by the returning refugees should not be assumed. Ibid. According to the Resolution, return should be at the earliest practicable date, but until now, 71 years later, the date has still to arrive. The wording of the resolution such as ‘practicable date’ weakened the context. It is unclear what the timing that seems practicable to allow the return? Obviously, Israel uses this lack of clarity to postpone the return to the time that they see possible. However, the time factor is a dangerous threat to the return. Resolution 194 (The UNCCP) 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. Ibid. The Resolution’s primary purposes included the establishment of the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), which consisted of three member states of the UN (France, Turkey and the United States). UN document A/AC.25/W.81/Rev. 2, Historical Survey of Efforts of the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine to Secure the Implementation of Paragraph 11 GAUN Resolution194(III). The Commission was given a crucial responsibility and authority to protect refugees and to facilitate consensus respecting the proper recommendations for the refugees by achieving ‘a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them’. Karmi and others (n 31).128Within the context of paragraph 11, the Resolution endorsed an essential function under the supervision of the UNCCP, to implement functions that were previously entrusted to the UN mediator for Palestine by facilitating the process of providing refugees with their rights of compensation and repatriation. Ibid. These functions can determine the Palestinian refugees’ fate, and once they are resolved, a substantial positive difference will occur in the Palestinian plight; the return of refugees in the former Yugoslavia is an example. The UNCCP mission is crucially important. The Palestinian refugees held little hope for it to make a difference on the ground, and indeed, it has made no significant difference until now. Since the declaration of UN Resolution 194 until now, the UNCCP has not been able to implement the Resolution’s recommendations. On 18 December 2018, the General Assembly adopted Resolution(A/RES/73/92), Home/Assistance to Palestine Refugees, which declared: notes with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has been unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), and reaffirms its request to the Conciliation Commission to continue exerting efforts towards the implementation of that paragraph and to report to the Assembly on the efforts being exerted in this regard as appropriate, but no later than 1 September 2019. UNGA Res. UN Doc. (2018) A/RES/73/92. The result of the vote for this Resolution was 163 in favour, two against, with 13 abstentions. This is an explicit confirmation of the validity of the internationally binding inalienable right of the Palestinian refugees. However, this Resolution also shows the failure of the UNCCP to implement its mission to achieve justice for Palestinian refugees. ‘It was realized later that the efforts of the Conciliation Commission, like those of the United Nations mediator before it, failed and did not effectuate the Right of Return of the Palestinian Arab refugees.’ Carl Dahlman and Gearóid Ó Tuathail, ‘The Legacy of Ethnic Cleansing: The International Community and the Returns Process in Post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina’ (2005) 24 Political Geography 569.127 The UNCCP made some efforts to politically intervene with Israel in order to guarantee the Right of Return to Palestinian refugees. Karmi and others (n 31).41 As a result, Israel offered repatriation of 100,000 refugees, but in 1951, Israel officially withdrew its decision. Ibid. By 1951 the role of the UNCCP was reduced to a limited position as an ‘intervenor with Israel (or other states) ‘to protect refugees’ rights. Ibid. As a result of the failure of the UNCCP to perform the functions assigned to it, it was stripped of its significant role of protection and reduced to a collection of information about refugees’ property in Israel. As a result, the UNCCP office in New York currently has the largest collection of data about Palestinian refugees’ property and land ownership during Mandate Palestine. Ibid. The question remains, however: after seven decades of the unsolved Palestinian refugee problem, to what extent can the data collected in the UNCCP office help to facilitate the return of the refugees to their homes and properties? There should be a pressure by the nations of the UN and the UN organs on the UNCCP to achieve its mission on the ground. Obviously, Israel does not cooperate with the work of the UNCCP, but this should not be ignored by the General Assembly and Security Council. To compare the UNCCP efforts to the UNHCR efforts in facilitating the return of the refugees to their homelands, the UNHCR proved to be successful and more authoritve with regards to refugees rights. Resolution 513 The General Assembly adopted Resolution 513 (VI), on 26 January 1952. It issued the Resolution based on the failure to implement the Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees. Assistance to Palestine Refugees: reports of the Director and the Advisory Commission of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, A/RES/513 (VI) 26 January 1952 The Resolution commended UNRWA’s role in facilitating and accelerating the reintegration of Palestine refugees and providing access to welfare for them. Besides, paragraph 2 of the Resolution adopts: without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 or to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Resolution 393 (V) of 2 December 1950 relative to reintegration either by repatriation or resettlement, the programme recommended by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the relief and reintegration of Palestine refugees. Ibid. As it provided within the context of the Resolution, the reintegration should be achieved either by repatriation, as stipulated in Resolution 194 para.11, or by resettlement elsewhere. ‘Resettlement apparently offered as a practical alternative to the principle of repatriation which had thus far not been practically obtainable.’ Karmi and others (n 31).130 Resolution 237 The UNSC Resolution 237 was adopted on 14 June 1967, after the further exodus of the Palestinian refugees in 1967. SCUN Res. 237 (June 14, 1967) S/RES/237 The Resolution was confirmed by the Security Council; 15 voted for, and none vetoed or abstained. The main aim of this Resolution is to call Israel to comply with the principles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The resolution also endorsed facilitation of the return of the refugees who had evacuated their homes as a result of the 1967 War. It requested the Secretary-General to monitor ‘the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council’. Ibid. Paragraph 4 of the Resolution calls: upon the Government of Israel … to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities. Ibid. Despite this legally binding Resolution, Palestinians are still scattered in refugee camps across the Middle East. Resolution 242 The UN Security Council Resolution (242) was unanimously approved on 22 November 1967. UNSC Res 242 (1967) S/RES/242 It was interpreted differently because of its broad language. Amb. Meir Rosenne, ‘Understanding UN Security Council Resolution 242’ Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs < http://jcpa.org/requirements-for-defensible-borders/security_council_resolution_242/> Last accessed 25 August 2019 This Resolution, particularly paragraph 2, calls for a just settlement of the Palestinian ‘refugee problem’. The ‘just settlement’ presumably, as emphasised in the above-mentioned Resolutions, means fulfilling the obligations of Israel toward Palestinian refugees by promoting the return or providing compensation. However, there is no specific reference to the Palestinian ‘Right of Return’. The broad language used in this Resolution is open to many interpretations. The ‘just settlement’ can be interpreted variously. It can be taken to refer to local integration, resettlement, compensation or return. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected this Resolution because it obliterates the national rights of ‘Palestinian people’ and because it deals with their problem as a ‘refugee problem’ not as a ‘national issue’. Rashid I Khalidi, ‘Observations on the Right of Return’ (1992) 21 Journal of Palestine Studies 29. Instead, the Resolution deals with their cause as ‘a random agglomeration of atomised individuals of no fixed identity whose future was to be determined in accordance with whatever arrangements were most convenient to the powers that be.’ ibid.The PLO also considered the language of Resolution 242 as insulting because it did not consider the Palestinians as ‘a people with a right to an equal voice’ in the settlement process. ibid. The Resolution is very important since no Member States of the Security Council vetoed it; however, its language made it difficult to interpret and implement. Rosenne (n 222) Moreover, the Security Council did not act under Chapter VII of the Charter because the events concerned in the Resolution, the Six-Day War, did not fit the characterisation of this Chapter. However, it was affirmed under Chapter VI, which ‘deals with pacific resolution of disputes.’ Ibid. Under this Chapter, the Security Council does not act, but calls upon the parties to the dispute to ‘seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice’. Charter of the United Nations (n 4) chapter VI It is difficult to know how negotiations between the concerned parties can be solved without an intervention by the Security Council. For example, until now, the Palestinian Authority and Israeli government have not reached any solution yet despite the several negotiations that had been conducted between them, such as the Oslo Process Agreement in 1993. While neither the Palestinian Authority or the Israeli government has cooperated to address the issue, the Security Council can act effectively to put both under the pressure of the sanctions previously mentioned (See chapter II D1 b). Resolution 2452A On 19 December 1968, the General Assembly purported to reaffirm the Right of Return in Resolution 2452A. This calls upon Israel to take effective and immediate steps for the return for those who had become refugees since the outbreak of the 1967 war, some of whom had become refugees for the second time since the 1948 exodus GAUN Res. 2452 A(XIII) UN Doc. (December 19, 1968) A/RES/2452(XXIII)(A-C). This Resolution recalled many other Resolutions previously adopted. Resolution s 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949, 393 (V) and 394 (V) of 2 and 14 December 1950, 512 (VI) and 513 (VI) of 26 January 1952, 614 (VII) of 6 November 1952, 720 (VIII) of 27 November 1953, 818 (IX) of 4 December 1954, 916 (X) of 3 December 1955, 1018 (XI) of 28 February 1957, 1191 (XII) of 12 December 1957, 1315 (XIII) of 12 December 1958, 1456 (XIV) of 9 December 1959, 1604 (XV) of 21 April 1961, 1725 (XVI) of 20 December 1961, 1856 (XVII) of 20 December 1962, 1912 (XVIII) of 3 December 1963, 2002 (XIX) of 10 February 1965, 2052 (XX) of 15 December 1965, 2154 (XXI) of 17 November 1966 and 2341 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. It also confirmed the ineffectiveness in applying the provisions of these Resolutions, particularly Resolution 194. Obstacles to applying UN Resolutions relevant to the Palestinian refugee problem ‘The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world because it is an injustice that is a menace to world peace’. Arnold Toynbee, a British historian, philosopher of history, author of numerous books and research professor of international history at the London School of Economics and King's College in the University of London. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee> accessed 30-06-2019 It is apparent that the more Resolutions are issued, the more it shows the ineffectiveness of the UN in establishing peace and justice in Palestine. While there are obligations on Member States within chapter VII of the UN Charter, to bring peace, there must be UN action on the ground toward Israel as a Member State party. For instance, the UNSC Resolutions 237 and 242, Israel either ignored them or interpreted them differently. The critical questions for consideration here can be articulated clearly as follows: Why has the UN not sanctioned Israel, as a Member State, for continuing noncompliance with its obligations to respect the UN principles, particularly chapter I of the UN Charter? Charter of the United Nations (n 4) art.2 The Article reads: 1- The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles 2- The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 3-All Members, in order to ensure, to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. 4-All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 5-All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 6-All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. 7-The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. What effects can the UN claim by declaring even more Resolutions without being able to force Israel to fulfil its commitments and responsibilities to Palestinian refugees? Palestinian refugees are still waiting for the answer for their calls of justice over the past 71 years. The quotation that follows seems to address the main barrier to implementing UN Resolutions: ‘[T]he main obstacle has been the American Veto which has been used to protect Israeli violations. In recent years, in the wake of the Gulf War, the world has been a witness to the double standards being applied by the United States (and Great Britain) regarding the implementation of United Nations Resolutions. The United States as a sole superpower, is in open and persistent support of Security Council Resolutions on Iraq to the extent of waging unilateral war on Iraq, while is against even condemnation of Israel of its continuous violation of Security Council Resolutions on Jerusalem and UN Resolution 194(III) on the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees. This policy has seriously undermined US credibility, not only in the Arab World, and has left the problem of the refugees without the active support of the Security Council’ Karmi and others (n 31). 154 The Resolutions mentioned above are not the only Resolutions proposed by the United Nations. There are many other Security Council resolutions relevant to the Palestinian problem, but the United States has been the main UN Member State vetoing these Resolutions. Some of these vetoed Resolutions, as shown in Table 2, aim to find a durable solution to the need for Palestinians to exercise their inalienable rights. The United States has used the Veto on approximately 80% of Middle East resolutions. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘Vetoed Draft Resolutions in the United Nations Security Council 1946-2012’ (3 September 2012) ‘The US is currently the most frequent user of the veto. Its veto of thirteen draft resolutions on Israel/Palestine between May 1995 and February 2011 continued a long tradition of US support for Israel on this issue’. Ibid. p.9 Table -2- Ibid, p. 12-62 Veto date & UNSCR reference Subject Resolution would have …/ Reference to UN Charter 29/06/76 S/12119 Question of the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination including the right to return and national independence and sovereignty in Palestine 30/04/80 S/13911 Question of exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights reaffirmed that Israel should withdraw from all occupied territories including Jerusalem and affirmed that the Palestinians’ right to self-determination included right to establish independent State in Palestine Reference to guarantees to be established for all States in the area in accordance with the with the Charter – operative paragraph 3 1/2/88 S/19466 Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine calls on Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention to territories occupied since 1967 and comply with obligations under the Convention, and requested continued monitoring by the UN Secretary-General Reference in preambular paragraph 3 to the inalienable rights of all peoples recognised by the Charter 9/6/89 S/20677 Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine strongly deplored Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories; demanded that Israel desist from deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories; expressed concern about prolonged closure of schools in parts of the occupied territory and requested the Secretary-General to report no later than 23 June Reference in preambular paragraph 2 to the inalienable rights of all peoples recognised in the Charter In summary, the UN’s purpose as stipulated in Chapter I Article (1) of the UN Charter is ‘to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace’. Charter of the United Nations (n 4) chapter I art.1. However, these measures have not been implemented on the ground when it comes to Israel. The threat to peace in the Middle East exists in the continuation of Israel’s denial of the refugees’ Right of Return. It cannot be denied that the UN made some efforts to support Palestinian refugees’ Right of Return. However, these efforts were restricted to the adoption of UNGA or UNSC Resolutions without requiring Israel to abide by the resolutions. In Gaza, there are nearly 1.4 million Palestine refugees existing blockade imposed by Israel on land, air, and sea since 2007. Refugees in Gaza are very close to the areas from which they were displaced, but their return has been blocked because of Israel’s denial of the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The following discussion explains and shows Israel’s attempts to suppress the question of Palestinian refugees. Israel and the Right of Return Israel’s Declaration of Independence states the nation’s vision and beliefs as follows: The state of Israel will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens without distinction of race, creed or sex …and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Israeli Government Official website <https://www.archives.gov.il/en/chapter/the-declaration-of-independence/> Last accessed 28,08,2019 Israel’s policies toward the Palestinian refugee problem and the Palestinians, including those who were internally displaced within Israel, makes clear that these principles have been systematically ignored. As a Member State of the UN, Israel is expected to comply with the principles of the UN Charter, as mentioned in the state’s Declaration of Independence. According to proposition articulated within the 1947 UN Partition Plan, both states - Israel and Palestine - should protect the fundamental rights of minorities. 181 resolution When the Partition Plan came into force, Israel came into being shortly thereafter; while Palestine is still only partially recognized. Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (n 17) p.2 Therefore, it is the responsibility of Israel to safeguard the rights of minorities. Israel is recognized as a member state of the UN, while Palestine is a non-member state UN observer state. Ibid. Israel’s admission as a member state in the UN meant that it was expected to respect the inalienable Palestinian right. But has Israel adhered to the conditions of its admission to the UN? What policies has Israel used to abide by its obligation toward the refugees? In the following discussion, I will review the implications of Israel’s admission to the UN as a Member State. This will be followed by a few examples of the Israeli policies with regards to the exportation of the Palestinians properties and lands; also, some cases of the lack of cooperation of the Israeli government with the Israeli Supreme Court such as the rulings for Kafer Bara’m and Iqrit villages. Finally, the Israeli laws that used to impede the return of Palestinian refugees will be summarized. Implications of Israel’s admission as a UN Member State As a ‘sovereign state’, Israel is supposed to safeguard the fundamental rights non-Jewish minorities, most of whom are displaced Palestinians living within Palestine or in neighboring countries. The rights of Palestinians as outlined in several Resolutions have never been implemented, and these rights are always rejected by the Israeli government. Since UN Resolutions 181 and 194, Israeli representatives at the UN have given unsatisfactory answers to questions about the implementation of Israel’s obligations towards the Palestinian refugee problem. Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (n 17) p.2 In response to questions about the Palestinian refugee problem which had been formulated by the UN Conciliation Commission, the Prime Minister of Israel replied: ‘The government of Israel considered that the real solution of the major part of the refugee question lay in the resettlement of refugees in the Arab States.’ Ibid 18 Moreover, when the commission asked if the government of Israel accepted paragraph 11 of Resolution 194(III) affirming the Right of Return of Palestinians, he answered: The two most widely advocated principles were (a) resettlement of the refugees in the places from which they had fled, thus creating a large minority problem and a possible menace in internal peace and stability (b) the resettlement of the refugees in areas where they would live under a Government akin to them in spirit and tradition and in which their smooth integration would be immediately possible with no resultant friction. During the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly and Security Council in 1980, the committee stated that the declarations of the Israeli government and representatives concerning resolution (194) did not unqualifiedly accept the Resolution. Therefore, their declarations does not create a legal obligation. United Nation General Assembly, Thirty-fifth session ( (n 74) p.20 Moreover, it can be understood that Israel wishes to relieve itself of responsibility towards the Palestinian refugee problem, which it claims, ‘was not of its making’. Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (n 17) p.18 Furthermore, their intended policies clearly stated in their proposals, which is to aim to resettle refugees in adjacent countries. He did not mention anything about repatriation or compensation for refugees. The UN considered that some replies provided by the Israeli representative showed that the Israeli government would commit to the Right of Return in principle, as a step towards sustaining peace in the Middle East. Ibid The acceptance of the principle of the Right of Return is a primary condition for the admission of Israel as a member state in the UN. Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (n 17) p. 20. The General Assembly took note of these assurances in admitting Israel to the United Nations. Its Resolution specifically mentioned Resolution (194) which established the Right of Return and thus linked Israel ́s admission to the acceptance of this principle. Despite this condition that stated clearly above by the General Assembly, Israel has not conformed to its obligations yet, and it still a Member State in the UN. The next paragraphs explain how Israel hindered the return of refugees to their homes. The Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 The British Mandate government passed Defence Regulations in 1945. The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories ( B’Tselem) website < https://www.btselem.org/legal_documents/emergency_regulations> Last accessed 28 August 2019These regulations established some provisions regarding illegal immigration, imprisonment of civilians for an indefinite period without trial or warrant, the deportation of citizens from their homeland without explanation, destruction of houses, imposition of curfews, and restriction of access to particular territories. Ibid A former Israeli Justice Minister deemed the British Defence Regulations as ‘officially licensed terrorism’. Hirst (n 105). 185 And Yaakov Shapira, an Israeli jurist and Socialist Zionist politician, declared: ‘It is our duty to tell the whole world that the Defense Laws passed by the British Mandatory Government of Palestine destroy the very foundations of justice in this land’. Ibid However, except for ‘changes resulting from the establishment of the State or its authorities’ Israel constituted these Regulations into its official law ‘pursuant to section 11 of the Government and Law Arrangements Ordinance B’Tselem (n 250) and used them to act against Palestinians ‘with greater severity’ than the British had done. Hirst (n 105). 185 Despite an attempt by the Knesset to object and abolish Defense Regulations because they ‘oppose the basic principles of democracy’, the Israeli government retained them. B’Tselem (n 250) Instead, they considered the Regulations as the ‘legal basis for the military rule’ that they later forced on Israel's Arab citizens. Ibid Hirst affirmed that under these laws Israel can deport and transfer Palestinians and then declare their zones as security zones where no Arab could enter without a permission. Hirst (185) He said: Under these laws, the army could uproot whole communities at will, deporting them or transferring them from one security zones which no Arab could enter without permission; any place; imprison a man without trial or confine him to his home or outside Israel, or expel him without explanation from his native land. The only means of redress, through a military court, was wholly futile Another example of these regulations: under the tenth part of the Defence Regulations, the High Commissioner was able to deport any person from Palestine for an indefinite period while the ‘Order remains in force’. The British Mandate, Palestine Defence Emergency Regulations 1945 ( 27th September, I945)The Palestine Gazette No. 1442 And this person can be detained without warrant by any of the police officers or His Majesty’s forces. Ibid Israel seized every opportunity to use the Defence laws, which Hirst described as ‘Draconian powers.’ Hirst (n 105).186Some of the villages that confronted the consequences of the application of these laws were the villages of Kafer Bar’am and Iqrit. Kafr Bar'am and Iqrit Kafr Bara’am (1953) and Iqrit (1948) are uninhabited villages which used to be the homes of Palestinian Christian villagers. Hirst (n 105).187 The Israeli military expelled the residents, some to other villages in the Galilee, others to Lebanon. Ibid. The villagers were told that they would be able to return within two weeks, but the Israeli authorities declared the villages to be closed military zones. Matthew Cassel, ‘Palestinians camp out for Right of Return’ (10 Sept 2013) p.6 The villagers expelled to Galilee became Israeli citizens as they lived in an Israeli controlled area. Ibid However, in enforcing Israeli law, Israel used discriminatory approaches to its Jewish and non-Jewish Arab citizens. The residents of these two villages appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court to allow them to return to their homes, Ibid and the Court ruled in their favour. Ibid The Israeli army and officials did not accept the Court’s ruling. Indeed, the Israeli Air Force used explosives and bombed both villages to prevent the return of the original residents. Ibid. The Israeli polices, and actions show their intention to colonialize more Palestinian lands, conceal former Palestinian existence, and frustrate the return of Palestinians. Justice for Palestinians seems to be impossible to be achieved by Israeli laws. With no doubts, Israel wants to achieve its own interests, even if this deprives Palestinians of their inalienable rights. And this contradicts their declared principles in their declaration of independence that supposed to ‘dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’ Israeli Government Official website <https://www.archives.gov.il/en/chapter/the-declaration-of-independence/> Last accessed 28,08,2019 Israel has not only imposed such policies but has also passed laws to achieve its expansionist and exclusivist nation purpose at the expense of Palestinian lives and rights. These include the Israeli Law of Return, the Israeli Nationality Law, and the Absentees' Property Law. Relevant Israeli Laws The Israeli Law of Return Israel ignores the Palestinian Right of Return, but, concurrently, applies its Law of Return only to Jews, regardless of where they were born or are living. The first Article of this law declares: ‘Every Jew has the right to immigrate to this country as an oleh [immigrant]’. Law of Return, < https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/law-of-return> Last accessed 30-06-2019 And Article 3 (a) reads: ‘A Jew who comes to Israel and subsequently expresses his desire to settle may, whilst still in Israel, receive an oleh’s [immigrant’s] certificate.’ Ibid. As indicated in these Articles, any Jew born has the right to seek Israeli citizenship and residence, but the Palestinian people who were born in historic Palestine (which is now called Israel) and who had documents to prove their residency and birth are excluded from this law. Karmi and others (n 31).134 The Israeli Law of Return is a breach of international law under the UDHR Article 13 which obliges all the nations to allow the residents to move freely and return to their country. Additionally, Israel is a state party of the 1951 Refugee Convention under Article 1.C that emphasised the Right of Return of the original inhabitants to their country. However, Israel declared its Law of Return without being held accountable for its breach of refugee law. The Israeli Nationality Law The Israeli Nationality Law is further evidence of Israeli’s policies to frustrate a just to solution to the Palestinian refugees’ problem. This law is linked to the Law of Return, which eventually leads to the reality that only Jews can apply for nationality while Palestinians who fled their homes during ethnic cleansing are excluded. Israel: Nationality Law, 5712-1952, (14 July 1953), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec20.html [accessed 26 August 2019] As stipulated in Article 1 of this law, the Israeli nationality can only be given in the existence of some characteristics. Ibid The Article reads as follows: ‘Israel nationality is acquired- By return ….; by residence in Israel….; by birth ….; by birth and residence in Israel ….; by naturalization...or by grant…... There shall be no Israel nationality save under this Law.’ Ibid. Under this Article in Section 2, Paragraph (a), in respect to acquiring nationality ‘by return’, it declares that ‘Every immigrant under the Law of Return...shall become an Israel national’. Moreover, paragraph (C) of this Article states: ‘This section does not apply to a person having ceased to be an inhabitant of Israel before the coming into force of this law’. Ibid. This clearly states that Palestinian refugees who were expelled during the war are excluded from the Nationality Law. Absentees' Property Law In 1950, Israel sent its army to expel Palestinians who had remained in Ashkelon (Magdal) during the 1947 ethnic cleansing. Hirst (n 105). 188 Israeli soldiers ‘put all the inhabitants on trucks, took them to the Gaza frontier and, with the help of some shooting in the air, told them to go and join the refugees who had passed that way two years before.’ ibid.188 At that time, the international community was concerned and sensitive about the refugee issue after World War II. Israel had always portrayed itself as a democratic state. Ibid. To prevent any criticism of it as a state, in 1950, Israel issued a law called ‘the Acquisition of Absentee Property Law’ or the ‘Absentees' Property Law ’ to justify Israel’s exploitation and expropriation of the lands, homes and properties of refugees. Ibid. The Absentees' Property Law was ‘the main legal instrument used by Israel to take possession of the land belonging to both internal and external Palestinian refugees’. Israel: Absentees' Property Law (1950) Available at < https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/538> Last accessed 26 August 2019 This law defined the ‘Absentee’ as persons who fled the ethnic cleansing after 29 November 1947 and was a national or a citizen in areas including Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, or in an area of Palestine outside Israel’s control. Property belonging to absentees was placed under the control and the law of Israel and then handed over to the Custodian. Article 2 (a) of the law reads ‘The Minister of Finance shall appoint, by order published in Reshumot, a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, and shall designate one of its members to be the chairman of the Council. The chairman of the Council shall be called the Custodian.’ Under Article 7 of this law, the Custodian shall ‘take care of held property, either himself or through others having his consent’ and can ‘make any investments necessary for the care, maintenance, repair or development of held property or for other similar purposes.’ The absentees’ property was transferred to the control of the Custodian for ‘development of Israel’ and the benefits of the Israeli residents. Lizzie Dearden , ‘Israel can now legally seize Palestinian homes in Jerusalem under 'absentees' property law’ (17 April 2015) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-can-now-legally-seize-palestinian-homes-in-jerusalem-under-absentees-property-law-10184483.html> Last accessed 26 August 2019 Under this law, the Custodian was able to ‘lawfully’ sell or lease to others - on behalf of absentees - properties that belonged to them. Also, the Custodian was enabled to transfer and sell the property to Israel ‘Development Authority at a price not less than the official value of the property’. Israel: Absentees' Property Law (1950) art.19 Available at < https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/538> Last accessed 26 August 2019 Hirst demonstrated the effects of this law as follows the simple villager of Galilee had not been vouchsafed the power to tell the future, and little did he realize that for this offence’ committed two years before it actually became one, all these worldly possession - his homes and field - could be taken away from him and given to somebody else, a total stranger who came from across the seas. It did not matter how long he had been away; it could have been for one day only. No matter where he had gone; it could have been to the next village. No matter why he left; perhaps it was to buy some sheep. Moreover, it was so much easier for the custodian in that he was not expected to furnish proof of absence. Hirst (n 105). 189 There have been arguments over the implementation of the Absentees' Property Law for decades and ‘the latest Supreme Court ruling was in response to high numbers of appeals from Palestinians who have lost their homes’. Dearden (n 293) The Absentees’ Property Law aims to ‘legally’ take possession of Palestinian refugee (inside Palestine and in exile) lands and Muslim Waqf properties. Adalah to Attorney General and Custodian of Absentee Property: Israel's Sale of Palestinian Refugee Property Violates Israeli and International Law, available at <https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7003> Last accessed 26 August 2019 Adalah, a Nazareth NGO defending the rights of Palestinian in Israel, discovered that these properties were being offered for sale to ‘private individuals’. In a letter sent to the Attorney General and Director-General of the Israel Lands Administration, Adalah asserted: ‘Selling these properties constitutes the final expropriation of the right to property of Palestinian refugees, despite the special legal, historical and political status of these properties.’ Ibid. Furthermore, selling the absentee’s properties to individuals violates international humanitarian law that endorses the necessity to ‘respect the right of private property and explicitly prohibits the final expropriation of private property following the termination of warfare.’ Ibid. To conclude, the accounts of Kafr Qasem, Kafr Bar'am, and Iqrit are examples of the lack of respect by Israeli authorities and officials of the rulings of their Supreme Court. How one can expect Israeli authorities to comply with international law given the impunity with which fails to act in cooperation with its own laws? Israel has always claimed that it applies the same laws to its Arabs as to its Jewish citizens. That is how it may have seemed on the surface. The truth is that Israel discriminates against non-Jews. Israel does not permit Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship to return to their original homes; while at the same time acquiescing in Jewish Israeli citizens building settlements and confiscating the properties of Palestinians. Masalaha concluded that the reason for Israel’s fear of allowing return of the Palestinian refugees is that: ‘opening the door to a potential 4 million returnees would threaten the demographic balance - and thus the very nature - of the world's only Jewish state’  Heather Sharp, ‘Right of Rreturn: Palestinian dream’ (15 April 2004) < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3629923.stm> [Last accessed 25 August 2019] – a policy paid for by the denial of inalienable Palestinian rights. Conclusion As a result of continuing ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism, Palestinians are scattered across the world, half of them in historic Palestine (in Israel, East Jerusalem, the West-Bank and the Gaza Strip), while others are spread over the Middle East and other regions. Their status varies depending on where they live. Those who live in the West Bank and Gaza are refugees and non-refugees living under belligerent occupation; Palestinians in East-Jerusalem are ‘permanent residents’ but are not considered as citizens of Israel; while other who live ‘inside Israel’ are citizens of Israel. Palestinian refugees have been suffering the consequences of ethnic cleansing for the past seventy-one years. Some live in refugee camps in Lebanon in desperate circumstances; others live in refugee camps in Jordan, where their living conditions are little better. Others have suffered the consequences of the civil war that erupted in Syria and were forced to evacuate once again to other countries to seek protection. These Palestinians are called (Falstinyeen al-shatat) which means (Palestinians of the diaspora), and they obtain various types of passports; some of whom use refugee document, and others hold travel documents (laissez-passer). Whatever their social status, most Palestinians are united by two realities: the first is that their grandparents or parents had to flee ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism; the second is that Israel has banned them from living in their ancestral lands. Palestinians endure an unjust situation due to the rejection of their Right of Return. Israel has an obligation toward Palestinian refugees, either by facilitating their repatriation or by compensation, depending on the decision of the Palestinian refugees. However, this right has been blocked by Israeli laws and destruction of Palestinian villages, so removing evidence of their heritage and culture. Although the Palestinian Right of Return is universally declared, legally binding, non-negotiable, and incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, this Palestinian right has been denied by successive Israeli governments. Even though the UN is aware of these Israeli laws and their discriminatory effects Israel remains a Member State of the UN which has not had to face any consequences of its rejection of international law. Some refugees in other parts of the world, for example, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo - have been repatriated to their original homes in conformity with UN principles, the international community has cooperated in facilitating the repatriation of these refugees, some with enforcement by NATO forces. By contrast Palestinian refugees have been denied return to their homelands since 1948. What makes the Palestinian case different from those of other refugee populations? There are essential reasons for considering Palestinian refugees separately from other refugee populations. First, they do not come under the protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention (UNHCR) because they are supposed to be covered by the protection mandate of the UNCCP. As has been mentioned above (see Chapter II D2), there are some encouraging successful attempts to return refugees to their homes using legal efforts used by through UNHCR and the UNSC resolutions. The UNHCR proved to be effective in facilitating repatriation in contrast to the UNCCP’s failure to protect Palestinian refugees’ repatriation and compensation. Second, Palestinians have had to confront a powerful settler-colonial movement, so the return of refugees elsewhere has not been hampered by the Israeli occupation and Israeli laws that are inconsistent with international law. The Israeli government has failed even to cooperate with its own Supreme Court when the latter has issued rulings that favour Palestinian rights Although the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is supposed to represent Palestinian interests, it has failed to do so because it rarely involves the Right of Return in its negotiations with Israel, for instance, in the Oslo Accords. Einat Wilf, ‘The Fatal Flaw That Doomed the Oslo Accords’ < https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/the-oslo-accords-were-doomed-by-their-ambiguity/570226/> Last accessed [23-09-2019] The collective interests of more than seven million Palestinian refugees should be represented by a proficient human rights protection agency, alongside the PLO in negotiations in the international arena. Third, although Palestinians enjoy popular support in the UN General Assembly, their aspirations are repeatedly frustrated by vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions, usually by the US. As mentioned above, UN General Assembly Resolutions do not create international legal obligations on the UN Member States. However, the Security Council Resolutions are legally binding and can use the power of action when it is agreed among the permanent Member States under Chapter IIV. Israel’s denial of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees is a dangerous threat not only to Palestinians but also in the wider world. The world’s silence in the face of Israel’s denial of Palestinian refugee rights makes clear to other states contemplating ethnic cleansing that they can expect to do so with impunity. Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya people and India’s treatment of Moslems in Kashmir may be examples. It is clear that international law has not protected Palestinian refugees. In answering the two questions posed in the introduction to this dissertation, I believe that Palestinians must not resign themselves to refugee status and abandon what appears to have been the cruel illusion that international law would protect them. Nor do they have to abandon aspirations for nationhood enjoyed by others. They do not have to accept the reality that laws and legal conventions have not so far protected their right to self-determination. As long as Palestinian refugees exist and claim their Right of Return, their right will not be lost. Palestinians have struggled for elusive justice for over seventy years. Although it is clear that justice is difficult to achieve, the struggle for it must continue. When Palestinians decide to protest peacefully, Israel claims that they constitute a danger to Israel’s security. When Palestinians resist an illegal occupation using violence, those countries that have contributed to the creation and perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem, deem them to be terrorists. It is time for all-powerful nations committed to observing international law to make clear what they expect of 7 million Palestinian refugees. Who should respond to the Palestinian refugee issue? Palestinian refugees have pinned their hopes on the UN; while the UN had responded to injustice with words, but not practical actions. The Member States of the United Nations can pressure Israel to address the Palestinian refugee problem, using means ranging from economic sanctions to arms embargoes. Pursuant to the UN Charter, the Security Council is the responsible UN body for the maintenance of international peace and security, and it can declare legally binding Resolutions that would force Israel to comply with UN principles, or sanction it for its rejection of the Palestinian Right of Return. However, between 1972 and 2017, the United States vetoed Security Council resolutions forty-three times to serve Israel’s interests. A just settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem would seem more likely to be achieved under the aegis of the UNHCR than it has been through the UNCCP. Palestinian refugees are the only refugees who are treated separately from other refugee populations in the world. Including Palestinian refugees under the protection of the UNHCR seems more appropriate to provide for their ‘protection’ while continuing to receive ‘relief and social, health, and educational services’ from UNRWA. The primary responsibility for implementing a durable solution for the Palestinian refugee problem rests with Israel because of its obligations, as stipulated in international law. The settler-colonial Israeli state was established on Palestinian land, ignoring the indigenous Palestinian people's rights. Israel continues to commit ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, demolishing their homes, annexing their lands, and building settlements for Israelis in their stead. If the international community does not put an end to the continuing Israeli failure to fulfil its obligations, this will be used to justify other states to ignore their obligations under international law. The silence of the international community in the face of Israeli denial of Palestinians rights has provoked violence, hate, and racism. While Palestinians are being deprived of their legally affirmed rights, Israeli people are enjoying most of their rights as citizens on the occupied Palestinian territory. Britain played a significant role in the dispossession of the Palestinian people. During the British Mandate, Palestinians were promised sovereignty and self-determination. However, to forge the concept of a national home for Jews, Britain supported the illegal settler-colonial project. Britain thus has a primary responsibility to work to solve the Palestinian refugee problem by playing its part in ensuring that Israel fulfils its obligations, starting by suspending its arms trade with Israel. < https://www.stoparmingisrael.org/stop-arming-israel-week-of-action-1st-7th-july-2017/#more-962> Last accessed [23-09-2019] To conclude, Palestinians are justified in expecting a united voice from international human rights agencies and institutions to address and solve the continuing struggle of the Palestinian refugees for justice. Prospects would seem to be better if Palestinian refugees were to be brought under the mandate protection of the UNHCR, or if the UNCCP system was to be dramatically strengthened to replace words with actions. Whichever of these two possibilities is pursued, a powerful, authoritative, clear, and legal resolution to reiterate and preserve the Palestine Right of Return is required. Personal Reflection Because international law did not give you your rights, from the beginning to the end. No law or international society nor the United Nations guaranteed you the Right of Return, not of reclaiming the lands occupied in 1967 or any right that had been usurped from you. How many resolutions were adopted by the United Nations? How many massacres occurred afterwards? Was Israel punished, even once? Radwa Ashour, The Woman from Tantoura.(2014) Palestinians ask such questions frequently as they doubt the effectiveness of international law in bringing peace and justice for them. The situation in Palestine has been the same and even worse since 1947, and the answers for these questions are still needed: what has the law has ever done for Palestinians? What evidence is there to show that the law has ever helped Palestinians to achieve their fundamental rights? When will justice prevail? Many UN Resolutions, law provisions, and instruments declare the rights of human beings to live in dignity and peace and are applicable for most of the people in the world, but not for the Palestinians. The discrimination against Palestinians makes people lose faith in the illusion of law in sustaining peace and security. After studying the laws concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, I am not going to remain ‘academically objective’ anymore. I have more than an academic interest in the topic of this thesis. As a Palestinian refugee myself, I have grown up with the hope that I would return to Isdud (Ashdod), my family’s original home in Palestine. After fleeing the terror of ethnic cleansing, my family and I had to endure miserable circumstances in Jabalya Refugee Camp. This experience made me determined not to abandon our Right of Return. Isdud is only 38 km north of Gaza, and I can see it from my room. But the barrier between me and my hometown is the Beit Hanoun-Erez armistice line, which is guarded by the Israeli army. Along with tens of thousands of other Palestinians in Gaza, and at no trivial risk of injury and death, my family (including my grandparents) and I have participated in the unarmed demonstrations of the Great March of Return. In these, we wished to remind the world that we have not surrendered what I strongly believe to be our legally confirmed Right of Return. What the law and the United Nations offered did not heal what we have suffered. I want to negotiate this issue from the perspective of a human being who suffered immensely from being a refugee and continuously being abused by this status. The abuse lies in how people see me and treat me; or what the Swedish rejection letter to my visa provided: ‘You do not have a strong link with your community back home.' Whatever country I wish to travel to, I am obliged to try and prove that I am not seeking asylum. They know that I am a Palestinian refugee; thus, I may try and seek refuge. Given the fact that they are already aware of the situation that we are forced to live through, why can’t the international community cooperate to hold Israel accountable for its denial to the Palestinian refugees’ issue? Also, in Gaza, the idea of escaping the persecution and fear is impossible because we are surrounded by a permanent Egyptian closure to the borders from the southeast and by Israel from the other sides. Also, if you had the opportunity to leave Gaza, you cannot guarantee coming back. And that is because of the continuous closure to the borders by Egypt and Israel. The Egyptian-Palestinian crossing borders are always under the mercy of the political situation. On top of that, Palestinians do not have an airport to practice their right of movement. Hence, Palestinian refugees in Gaza are entirely under the mercy of the neighbouring countries and the occupation. In summary, international law has not served the Palestinian cause on the ground; instead, it has done more to satisfy Israel’s interests than the Palestinians’. International law has, in general, proved that it is all about politics and powers. It seemed to be futile. Palestinian refugees are in need of justice to live in peace and harmony. The application of law should be separated from politics because serving other nation’s interests at the expense of other nation’s lives is not fair. International law should implement action and bring attention to the Palestinian refugee problem. Appendices Maps Plan of Partition Bibliography Primary Sources UN Documents Figures at a Glance, The United Refugee Agency (UNHCR), (2019) <https://www.unhcr.org/ph/figures-at-a-glance> last accessed 29 July 2019 General Assembly and Security Council Thirty Firth Session, UN Publication A/35/316 s/14045 3 July 1980 Special Unite on Palestinian Rights (1 November 1978) UN Doc ST/SG/SER.F/2 THE RIGHT OF RETURN OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. UN Security Council, ‘Subsidiary Organs of the United Nations Security Council’ (8 February 2019) , <https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/committees-working-groups-and-ad-hoc-bodies.> Last accessed 24 August 2019 p.4 UN Security Council, < https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/information> Last accessed 24 August 2019 UNGA Res 2452 (December 19, 1968) UN Doc A/RES/2452(XXIII)(A-C) UNGA Res 513 (26 January 1952) UN Doc A/RES/513 (VI) UNGA Res. (on the report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (2018) A/RES/73/92. UNGA Res. 181(1947), UN Doc A/RES/181(II) UNGA, Thirty-Fifth Session (3 July 1980) A/35/316-S/14045 UNGA, Essentials of peace, 1 December 1949, A/RES/290 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, <https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/briefing/1999/6/3ae6b82760/kosovo-170000-return-9-days.html> Last accessed 24 August 2019 United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees <https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees> accessed 26 June 2019 United Nations, the Charter of the United Nations, actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (24 October 1945) 1 UNTS United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III) (UDHR) UNSC Res 1199 (1998) UN Doc S/RES/1199 UNSC Res 242 (1967) UN Doc S/RES/242 UNSC Res 242 (1967) UN Doc S/RES/242 UNSC Res 688 (1991) UN Doc S/RES/688 (1991) UNSC Res 819 (1993) UN Doc S/RES/819 UNSC Res. 237 (June 14, 1967) UN Doc S/RES/237 UNSC Res1199 (1998) (23 September 1998) UN Doc S/RES/1199 (1998) International Law Conventions Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137 (Refugee Convention) Executive Committee Conclusions No. 29 (XXXIV) (1983), No. 50 (XXXIX) (1988), No. 58 (XL) (1989), No. 79 (XLVII) (1996), No. 81 (XLVIII) (1997), No. 85 (XLIX) (1998), No. 87 (L) (1999), No. 89 (L) (2000), and No. 90 (LII) (2001). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) Other Laws and Human Rights Law Organizations Adalah, ‘To Attorney General and Custodian of Absentee Property: Israel's Sale of Palestinian Refugee Property Violates Israeli and International Law’ <https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7003> Last accessed 26 August 2019 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘Vetoed Draft Resolutions in the United Nations Security Council 1946-2012’ (3 September 2012) GUIDELINES ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION: Cessation of Refugee Status under Article 1C(5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Ceased Circumstances” Clauses) Historical Survey of Efforts of the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine to Secure the Implementation of Paragraph 11 GAUN Resolution 194(III) UN Doc A/AC.25/W.81/Rev.2 Human Rights Watch, < https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/crsr-rtr.htm> [ last accessed 10-8-019] Inter-Agency Standing Committee, ‘Growing the Sheltering Tree. Protecting Rights Through Humanitarian Action’ (September 2002) Israeli Absentees' Property Law (1950) art.19 Available at < https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/538> Last accessed 26 August 201 Israeli Government Official website <https://www.archives.gov.il/en/chapter/the-declaration-of-independence/> Last accessed 28,08,2019 Israeli Law of Return, < https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/law-of-return> Last accessed 30-06-2019 Israeli Nationality Law, 5712-1952, (14 July 1953), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec20.html [accessed 26 August 2019] OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (adopted 10 September 1969 entered into force on 20 June 1974) CAB/LEG/24.3 The British Mandate, Palestine Defence Emergency Regulations 1945 ( 27th September, I945)The Palestine Gazette No. 1442 The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories ( B’Tselem) website < https://www.btselem.org/legal_documents/emergency_regulations> Last accessed 28 August 2019 Secondary Sources: Books Arendt H, The Jewish Writings (Jerome Kohn and H. Feldman ed, Schoncken Books, New York 1943) https://www.jus.uio.no/smr/om/aktuelt/arrangementer/2015/arendt-we-refugees.pdf Gaterell P, The making of the Modern Refugee (Oxford University Press 2013) Hirst D, The Gun and the Olive Branch : The Roots of Violence in the Middle East (Futura Publications Limited 1978) Ingrams D, Palestine Papers 1917-1922 Seeds of Conflict (John Murray (Publishers) Ltd. London 1971) Karmi G and others, Palestinian Exodus, 1948-1998 (1st edn, Ithaca Press 1999) Masalha N, The Palestine Nakba : Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory (London: Zed Books 2012) Molavi SC, Stateless Citizenship : The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel (Brill 2013) Pappé I, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld 2006) Renton J, The Zionist Masquerade: The Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance 1914-1918 (Palgrave Macmillan UK October 2007) Shlaim A, The Iron Wall : Israel and the Arab World Weizmann CH, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann: August 1898-July 1931 Journal Articles Dahlman C and Tuathail G, ‘The Legacy of Ethnic Cleansing: The International Community and the Returns Process in Post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina’ (2005) Political Geography . Dahlman C and Tuathail GÓ, ‘The Legacy of Ethnic Cleansing: The International Community and the Returns Process in Post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina’ (2005) 24 Political Geography Khalidi R, ‘Observations on the Right of Return’ (1992) Journal of Palestine Studies. Khalidi RI, ‘Observations on the Right of Return’ (1992) Journal of Palestine Studies Mallison W and Mallison S, ‘The Right of Return’ (1980) University of California Press Molavi Sh, 'Stateless Citizenship : The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel' (2013) Brill. Nele M. ‘Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations as Origin of Trusteeship’ (2005) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Ottaway M and Romano JC, ‘OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES Learning from Sykes-Picot’ (2015) Willson Center Rosenne A, ‘Understanding UN Security Council Resolution 242’ Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs < http://jcpa.org/requirements-for-defensible-borders/security_council_resolution_242/> Last accessed 25 August 2019 Salih R, ‘Palestinian refugees and the politics of return’ (2014) The Middle East in London Shacknove A, ‘Who Is a Refugee?’ (1985) University of Chicago Pres Journals Shaoul J, ‘Historian seeks release of Israel’s secret papers on Kfar Qasem massacre’ (2018) World Socialist Web Site< https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/20/isra-o20.html> last accessed 28 August 2019 Walid Khalidi, ‘ed., From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem until 1948’ (1971) Beirut Institute for Palestine Studies News Websites Aderet O, ‘General's Final Confession Links 1956 Massacre to Israel's Secret Plan to Expel Arabs’ (2018) Haaretz <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-general-s-confession-links-massacre-to-israel-s-secret-plan-to-expel-arabs-1.6550421> Last accessed 28 August 2019 Cassel M, ‘Palestinians camp out for Right of Return’ (10 Sept 2013) Al-Jazeera <https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/2013910101928214440.html> Last Accessed [12 September 2019] Fayyad H, Gaza's Great March of Return protests explained (March 2019) Al-Jazeera <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/gaza-great-march-return-protests-explained-190330074116079.html> last accessed 11 July 2019 Heather Sharp, ‘Right of Rreturn: Palestinian dream’ (15 April 2004) < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3629923.stm> [Last accessed 25 August 2019] Lizzie Dearden , ‘Israel can now legally seize Palestinian homes in Jerusalem under 'absentees' property law’ (17 April 2015) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-can-now-legally-seize-palestinian-homes-in-jerusalem-under-absentees-property-law-10184483.html> Last accessed [26 August 2019] 5