First, the Right of Return is perfectly legal24 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.25 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".26 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.