- The Right of Return is Legal
First, the Right of Return is
perfectly legal in accordance with international law. The well-known
UN Resolution 194 has been affirmed by the international community
135 times in the period 1948-2000. There is nothing like it in UN
history. This universal consensus elevates this resolution from a
“recommendation” to an expression of the determined will of the
international community. International law also prohibits mass
denationalization of a people if the territory in which they live
undergoes a change of sovereignty. Thus the refugees are entitled to
return to the homes they lost and to a restoration of their
nationality as well. The Right of Return is supported by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the many regional
conventions based on human rights law. It is also derived from the
sanctity of private ownership, which is not diminished by change of
sovereignty, occupation or passage of time.
Second, the Right of Return is sacred to all Palestinians. It has
remained their fundamental objective since 1948. Their determination
on the return issue has endured despite warfare, suffering, and
enormous social and political hardships. In this, the refugee from
Iqrit, who is an Israeli citizen, the refugee from Lydda, who is a
Jordanian citizen, the refugee from Haifa, who is stateless in Syria
or Lebanon, and the refugee from Jaffa, who is a US citizen, have
the same determination.
Third, there is no acceptable reason why they should not return. The
Israelis oppose return on the grounds that it will pollute the
“Jewish character” of Israel and cause outward emigration of Jews.
They say it is impossible because the refugees’ villages have been
destroyed and property boundaries lost. A senior Israeli
intelligence General still perpetuates this claim when he says,
“while the principle of ‘return to their original homes’ was fitting
and possible in 1948, it has not been a realistic option for years.
Implementing it today would mean dismantling and destroying the new
infrastructure built in the last 50 years”. None of these claims
stand serious scrutiny. They are meant to perpetuate the act of
ethnic cleansing. They try to derive some comfort from the dubious
assumption that, while planning a crime is illegal and
reprehensible, carrying it out efficiently is acceptable.
|
