Read Palestine

The Right of Return of the Palestinian People

Properties2
tags
aliasesThe Right of Return of the Palestinian People, ST/SG/SER.F/2

28 min read

Summary

A United Nations study prepared by the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights for the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People under General Assembly resolution 32/40B of 2 December 1977, arguing that the Right of Return is an acknowledged norm of international law, that it was specifically established for the Palestinian people in paragraph 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948), that Israel’s admission to the United Nations was linked to its cooperation in implementing it, that Israeli legislation — the Law of Return, the Citizenship Law (1952) and the Absentee Property Law — obstructs it, and that the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s efforts to give it effect from 1949 to 1951 failed because Israel would consider return and compensation only inside a general peace settlement while the Arab Governments would not make that settlement. The study traces the Assembly’s reiteration of the right from 1949 to 1977, through its linkage with Self-determination in 1969-1974 and the Committee’s 1976 two-phase return programme (The Right of Return of the Palestinian People, PDF p.4, p.6-7, p.41-44).

What the file is

United Nations publication ST/SG/SER.F/2, Sales No. E.78.1.21, New York, 1978, price $U.S. 3.00, issued to be available during the thirty-third session of the General Assembly; litho note dated November 1978 (PDF p.3, p.60). Seven chapters (printed p.1-39), References and Notes (printed p.40-46) and three annexes (printed p.47-54): Annex I, the Provisional Government of Israel’s reply of 1948 to the Mediator; Annex II, the full text of resolution 194 (III); Annex III, a list of 28 General Assembly resolutions referring to resolution 194 (III). The text copy is a heavily OCR-garbled rendering of a legible typewritten original; garbled passages were read in the original, and every passage in these notes that depends on the garbled copy was verified against the original (PDF p.10, p.14, p.16, p.18-21, p.25, p.30, p.37, p.42-43, p.45-51, p.59). The body refers at PDF p.44 to the Committee’s specific recommendations being “at Annex IV”; no Annex IV is listed in the annex list (PDF p.52) or present in the volume, which ends after Annex III (see Open questions).

Section by section

Preliminary material (PDF p.1-5)

Cover, title page (New York, 1978), publication note and Preliminary Note: the study was “prepared for the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 32/40B of 2 December 1977, by the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights in keeping with guidance provided by the Committee” (PDF p.4). Contents lists Chapters I-VII, References and Notes and Annexes with their printed starting pages (PDF p.5).

I. Introduction (PDF p.6-7, printed p.1-2)

The right to return home is presented as traditionally fundamental, its denial justified only as punishment of criminals; forced departure in war made the right unquestionable, and jurists treated it as self-evident. Normally individual, it takes a collective dimension when large groups are displaced; the Palestinian case is its invocation on a national scale, the greater part of a nation uprooted and denied return. Without restoration of the individual right, the study argues, the collective right of self-determination becomes impossible. The Palestinians, recognised in the League Covenant as a provisionally “independent” nation, could not exercise self-determination under the Mandate; partition was recommended in 1947, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, and “war and politics (both Israeli and Arab) prevented the Palestinian Arab state envisaged in the resolution from coming into existence” (PDF p.6). The first exodus followed in 1948 and a second wave in 1967. From 1953 to 1973 the issue was treated essentially as a “refugee problem”; in 1974 the Assembly recognised self-determination and reaffirmed the inalienable right of return in that context (PDF p.7).

II. The Right of Return as a Principle of International Law (PDF p.8-12, printed p.3-7)

A genealogy of the right: Euripides’ Medea on the loss of a native land; Plato’s Socrates on leaving with one’s goods, return and retention of property being implicit; Francisco de Vitoria — “Exile is included among the capital penalties”; the Magna Carta of 1215 guaranteeing freedom “to go out of our Kingdom and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water”; de Vattel in Le Droit des Gens on the exile’s right to live somewhere; the French Constitution of 1791 on freedom to go, stay or leave (PDF p.8-9). Modern jurists treated return at the individual level through denationalisation and statelessness. The Economic and Social Council’s 21 June 1946 resolution proposing an International Refugee Organisation made displaced persons’ “early return to their country of origin” the main task (PDF p.9). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, links leaving and returning (PDF p.9). The Declaration’s legal status is discussed through the International Court of Justice’s 1971 Namibia Advisory Opinion: its affirmations are not binding as a convention but “can bind states on the basis of custom through a general practice accepted as law”, the right to equality being a pre-existing customary norm it codified (PDF p.10). An International Commission of Jurists study is quoted: the Declaration has obtained a status similar to general principles of international law through State practice, while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a binding convention for its parties; the Covenant, in force since 23 March 1976, establishes return in Article 12 — “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country” (PDF p.11). ECOSOC’s 1973 draft principles are quoted: entitlement to return without distinction, no arbitrary deprivation of nationality to divest the right, no arbitrary deprivation of entry, and no denial of return for lack of a passport (PDF p.11-12). The chapter concludes that the right is an acknowledged norm, one of “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations”, and that the United Nations has in addition specifically established the Palestinian right (PDF p.12).

III. The Diaspora of the Palestinian People (PDF p.13-15, printed p.8-10)

A summary survey (a footnote notes that other studies in the series trace the origins in full). Article 22 of the Covenant is quoted on Class “A” communities provisionally recognised as independent nations; all became independent except Palestine, where the Mandate’s primary aim was instead implementation of the Balfour Declaration, allotted to Britain in 1922 without ascertaining the wishes of the Palestinian people (PDF p.13). Jewish immigration raised the Jewish population from under 10 per cent in 1917 to over 30 per cent in 1947; Palestinian resistance led to “a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides”; partition, provincial autonomy and a unified state were each considered and abandoned before Britain referred the problem to the United Nations in 1947 (PDF p.13). Partition’s eight parts, the Arab states’ rejection, the war, Israel’s expansion beyond its assigned borders “to occupy territory allotted to the Arab state by the partition resolution”, the Arab bordering states’ sending of troops while rejecting the establishment of Israel as an illegal act, Jordan in the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza, and a great exodus “both from Israeli territory as well as the territories occupied by Israel” are summarised (PDF p.14). The Mediator, Count Bernadotte, is quoted: “The future of these Arab refugees is one of the questions under dispute, the solution of which presents very great difficulties”; the exodus “resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion”; “almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish occupation”, of somewhat more than 400,000 Arabs about 50,000 remaining; the Economic Survey Mission the following year estimated 726,000 Palestinian refugees, and revised the Mediator’s 7,000 Jewish refugees to 17,000 (PDF p.14-15). The diaspora figures, drawn from Janet Abu Lughod: by June 1967 about 2.7 million Palestinian Arabs — a million in exile, a million in the West Bank, 400,000 in Gaza, 300,000 in Israel; the 1967 war brought a second exodus of almost half a million; by 1970, of about 3 million, about 400,000 were Israeli citizens and about a million in the occupied territories, with about 800,000 in Jordan, 600,000 in Syria and Lebanon and 200,000 elsewhere (PDF p.15).

IV. The Establishment of the Right of Return of the Palestinian People (PDF p.16-21, printed p.11-16)

Resolution 181 (II) contained no right of return — none was thought necessary, since the plan aimed to minimise displacement — but its minority stipulations, to be fundamental law, included non-discrimination, equal protection, no expropriation except for public purposes with full compensation fixed by the Supreme Court paid before dispossession, and citizenship for residents of each state. The plan anticipated 10,000 Jews in the Arab State — a situation that “the expansion of Israeli-occupied territory had obviated” — and 498,000 Jews and 497,000 Arabs in the Jewish State; since only Israel came into existence it bore those obligations, and the exodus did not absolve it (PDF p.16-17). Bernadotte’s 26 July 1948 proposal to the Provisional Government — a limited return from 15 August 1948, differentiation for men of military age, international help with rehabilitation, without prejudice to the ultimate right of all — was rejected in the reply of 1 August (Annex I), which made the problem conditional on a peace treaty (PDF p.17-18). The Mediator also stated that it was not yet known what Israel’s policy on return would be when the final terms of settlement were reached, and that “no settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return of the home from which he has been dislodged by the hazards and strategy of the armed conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine” — “return of the home” as printed in the original (PDF p.18). His report is quoted at length: denial of return while Jewish immigrants flow in would be an offence against elemental justice and threatens permanent replacement of refugees “rooted in the land for centuries”; reports of large-scale looting and destruction of villages; Israel’s liability to restore property and indemnify wanton destruction; whether the refugees were resettled in Israel or in an Arab State, a major question was placing them in an environment where they could find employment and the means of livelihood; and the refugees’ “unconditional right to make a free choice” should be fully respected (PDF p.19). His mission was “ended by his assassination by Israeli terrorists” (PDF p.19). Resolution 194 (III), passed 11 December 1948 on a British draft, declared in paragraph 11 that refugees wishing to return and live at peace should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, with compensation for those choosing not to return and for loss or damage; it established the Conciliation Commission to facilitate repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation and compensation (PDF p.20). The Commission’s interpretation is quoted: a free choice between return with compensation for loss or damage, and non-return with adequate compensation and resettlement elsewhere, applying equally to Arab and Jewish refugees (PDF p.20). The right’s sole qualification was living at peace; UNRWA’s creation and renewals were without prejudice to it; Security Council resolution 237 (1967), endorsed by Assembly resolution 2252 (ES-V), called on Israel “to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities”; and resolution 242 is dated in this chapter to 11 November 1967 and quoted as calling “for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” (PDF p.21; for the date, see Open questions).

V. Israel and the Right of Return (PDF p.22-29, printed p.17-24)

Israel’s independence-day undertaking to the United Nations is quoted: the state “will uphold full racial and political equality of all citizens without distinction of race, creed or sex” and stood ready to sign the partition resolution’s declaration (PDF p.22). In the membership discussions the Israeli representative recalled that Ben-Gurion did “not exclude the possibility of acceptance for repatriation of a limited number of Arab refugees” while holding that the real solution lay in resettlement in Arab States; asked whether Israel rejected paragraph 11, he answered “No, my Government does not reject that or any other paragraph”, with return conditioned on peaceful conditions and practicability, and in Ben-Gurion’s view contingent on peace (PDF p.23). The representative argued resettlement in kin states offered the stable solution, and, pressed on Charter Article 2(7), said Israel claimed no moral right to wash its hands of the problem and recognised a duty, “more as a moral than as a legal obligation”, to contribute to a solution (PDF p.23-25). A committee member recorded the assurance that frontiers, Jerusalem and the refugee problem would not be treated as domestic jurisdiction. The admission resolution — cited in the body as “Security Council Resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949”, though the paragraphs quoted are the General Assembly’s (see Open questions) — recalled the 1947 and 1948 resolutions and the representative’s explanations; the study argues admission “was linked with its cooperation in implementing the right of return” (PDF p.25). By 1955 an Israeli representative told the Ad Hoc Political Committee that Israel as a sovereign state must apply “its own authority and discretion to the question, who shall and who shall not enter its territory” (PDF p.26). The legislation section quotes the Law of Return of 1950 in full — “Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh” — and concludes “It is evident that Palestinians are completely excluded from the purview of this law” (PDF p.26); the Nationality Law’s routes by return, residence, birth and naturalisation are quoted and each shown to exclude or disfavour the refugees who fled (PDF p.27-28); and the Absentee Property Law of 1950 is quoted on its definition of an absentee (29 November 1947 to 19 May 1948, including a Palestinian citizen who left his ordinary residence), vesting in the Custodian, the Custodian’s power to sell, and its rules of evidence making the Custodian’s certificates presumptive or conclusive. The combined effect, the study concludes, is legal obstacles, in addition to political conditions, to the exercise of the inalienable right (PDF p.28-29).

VI. The Conciliation Commission for Palestine (PDF p.30-37, printed p.25-32)

Paragraph 11 is restated as unconditional except for the living-at-peace proviso, with compensation an integral element, supported by a 1949 Keren Kayemeth Leisrael document: of Israel’s area only about 300,000-400,000 dunams were State Domain and the Fund and private Jewish owners held under two million dunams — “Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country”; conquest cannot abrogate the legal owner’s rights, and the Fund would pay a fixed and fair price, the Government in due time making compensation to the Arabs (PDF p.30). At Lausanne in 1949 an Israeli memorandum held individual return impossible — “The clock cannot be put back” — their houses and jobs gone; the Commission reported in June 1949 that it had “not succeeded in achieving the acceptance of this principle by the Government of Israel” and that Israel’s refusal explained the Arab delegations’ reserve on territorial questions (PDF p.31). The Commission’s analysis: the Assembly had envisaged simple legislation and quick repatriation, but dwellings were demolished or occupied by new immigrants and livelihoods gone, so any plan needed the governments’ active participation; Israel would pay compensation for abandoned land only inside a general peace settlement, against which it would claim war damages, recognised proprietary rights for compensation purposes only, and reserved legislation on absentee property (PDF p.31-32). The Economic Survey Mission’s chairman recommended compensation be separated from a peace settlement, since the principle was established and basically acknowledged, most refugees were not Arab-state citizens, and early payment would encourage resettlement outside Israel as Israel wished; Israel insisted on the general-settlement context (PDF p.32-33). The October 1950 report recognised the validity of the Arab contention on Israel’s de facto measures — insecurity, blocked bank accounts, liquidation of property — while urging Arab agreement to resettle non-returners and linkage to boundaries; Ben-Gurion, asked whether Israel accepted the principle, again made return contingent on peace, excluding only a limited repatriation (PDF p.33-34). The Commission’s broad lines put return first only as “the return of that number of refugees to Israel which would be consistent with their own best interests”, with immediate compensation and Arab-state reintegration (PDF p.35). Its November 1951 Paris proposals — repatriation of a specified number in integrable categories, and a global compensation sum on the Refugee Office’s evaluation paid through a United Nations trustee — drew an Israeli response that return was impossible, rehabilitation was the Arab States’ responsibility, and compensation depended on Israel’s capacity and must end the whole refugee problem for Israel; the Arab delegations protested that the Commission’s proposal itself contravened paragraph 11, which set no limit (PDF p.35-36). The Commission concluded that Israel was not prepared to implement paragraph 11 and the Arab Governments were not prepared to implement paragraph 5’s final settlement; the 1951 Paris conference was its last major effort except a fruitless 1961 revival, and the study calls it symbolic of the commitment of the United Nations, through Resolution 194 (III), to the right of return of the Palestinian people (PDF p.37; wording verified against the original, the text copy of this page being garbled).

VII. The United Nations and the Right of Return (PDF p.38-44, printed p.33-39)

The 1949 Lausanne protocols led to no agreement; the armistice lines became de facto frontiers and only a few thousand Palestinians were allowed to enter Israeli-controlled areas under specific limited agreements (PDF p.38). UNRWA’s establishment in December 1949 expressly did not prejudice the right, and each renewal repeated the “deep regret” that repatriation or compensation had not been effected; in 1950 and 1951 the Security Council called for return of persons displaced from the demilitarized zones; Israel signed the Covenant in December 1966 but, a footnote records, had not ratified it (PDF p.38). Resolution 237 brought the 1967 “new refugees” within the right; resolution 242 is here dated 22 November 1967, quoted on the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war and withdrawal, and as affirming the necessity “for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” (PDF p.39). In December 1968 the Assembly established the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories and called for return without delay of those who fled in 1967. The chapter then quotes the Assembly’s successive formulations: 1969, reaffirming “the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine” and speaking of the people, not simply refugees; 1970, respect for Palestinian rights as an indispensable element of a just and lasting peace, entitlement to equal rights and self-determination, and a call for immediate steps for the return of the displaced persons; 1972, implementation of resolution 242 taking into account all relevant resolutions; 1973, the enjoyment of the right to return recognised in resolution 194 as indispensable both to a just refugee settlement and to self-determination (PDF p.39-41). The 1974 resolution is quoted: self-determination without external interference, national independence and sovereignty, and “the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced” and uprooted (PDF p.41). An Israeli General Assembly statement is quoted as the prevailing Israeli position: the problem originated in Arab rejection and war; about 590,000 Arab refugees against about 600,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands; an exchange of population had taken place; the Arab states deliberately perpetuated refugee status as a political weapon; return coupled with a Palestinian state is calculated to destroy Israel; refugees should be resettled and integrated where they are, with compensation in a peace settlement, in which Israel will raise reparations for Jewish refugees (PDF p.41-42, Doc. A/32/PV.27 in the notes). The Committee’s May 1976 report excerpts follow: return as a conditio sine qua non of self-determination; Israel under a binding obligation flowing from its Charter commitments and its membership undertaking to implement resolutions 181 and 194, reflected in resolution 273 (III); the right absolute for every Palestinian with priority over compensation, only those declining after a predetermined period opting for compensation, the Conciliation Commission’s property valuation surviving on microfilm; and a two-phase programme — immediate return of the 1967-displaced under resolution 237, preparations (a competent agency, a fund, registration beyond UNRWA’s rolls, an International Court of Justice advisory opinion under Charter Article 96) for the 1948-displaced, whose problems would be solved on the basis of the resolutions and agreement between the parties (PDF p.42-43). A June 1976 Security Council draft affirming self-determination including return failed on a permanent member’s negative vote (the USA); the Assembly endorsed the report in November 1976 and December 1977, re-endorsing return both times (PDF p.44).

References and Notes (PDF p.45-51, printed p.40-46)

Chapter-by-chapter source lists with, for Chapter VII, the vote on each resolution cited. Chapter II’s list gives the classical and legal sources (Euripides, Plato, Vitoria, Vattel, ECOSOC document E/81/Rev.1, the International Court of Justice Namibia opinion at I.C.J. Reports 1971, pp.77-78, the International Commission of Jurists Review No. 12 of June 1974), records that “The Declaration was adopted by 48 votes in favour, none against, with 8 abstentions”, gives the Covenant signature/accession position at 31 December 1977 for Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and cites ECOSOC resolution 1788 (LIV) of 18 May 1973, the number overwritten by hand in the original (PDF p.45). Chapter III rests on the Mediator’s report (A/648), the Economic Survey Mission report (A/AC.25/6) and Janet Abu Lughod (PDF p.46). Chapter IV on UNSCOP’s report, A/648 and the Conciliation Commission’s Historical Survey (A/AC.25/W.81/Rev.2) (PDF p.47). Chapter V on the Security Council and Ad Hoc Political Committee records and Joseph Badi (ed.), Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel (1961) (PDF p.48). Chapter VI on the Fund’s Jewish Villages in Israel (1949), the Commission’s progress reports (A/1367/Rev.1, A/927, A/1985) and the Historical Survey (PDF p.49). Chapter VII’s votes include resolution 302 (IV) dated there to 9 December 1949, resolutions 2443 (XXIII) 60-22-30, 2452 A (XXIII) 100-1-6, 2535 B (XXIV) 47-22-47, 2628 (XXV) of 4 November 1970 57-16-39, 2672 C (XXV) 47-5-28, 2949 (XXVII) 86-7-31, 2963 E (XXVII) 67-21-37, 3089 D (XXVIII) 87-6-33, 3236 (XXIX) 89-8-37, 3376 (XXX) 93-18-27, 31/20 90-16-30, and 32/40 of 15 December 1977 (Part A 100-12-29; Part B 95-20-26) (PDF p.50-51).

Annexes (PDF p.52-60, printed p.47-54 and back cover)

The annex list (PDF p.52) gives Annexes I-III only. Annex I is the Foreign Minister’s letter to the Mediator, signed “M. Shertok”: the Provisional Government was not unmindful of the Arabs’ plight but could not agree readmission for security, war-outcome and settlement-stability reasons; repatriation on humanitarian grounds alone would prejudice Israel’s rights under the truce, relieve the aggressor states and bring in “a politically explosive and economically destitute element”; the root cause was the Arab League’s refusal to accept Israel; a limited return to Jaffa and Haifa was also refused; reintegration was economically insoluble and Israel would claim compensation from the Arab States; the mass flight was “a direct effect of Arab aggression from outside” and “mostly spontaneous”; and “The Palestinian Arab exodus of 1948 is one of those cataclysmic phenomena which, according to the experience of other countries, change the course of history”, to be solved only in a peace treaty with due regard to Israel’s counter-claim (PDF p.53-55). Annex II reproduces resolution 194 (III) in full, paragraphs 1-15 — the Commission’s establishment and functions, Jerusalem’s special status and demilitarization, Holy Places, free access, economic arrangements, paragraph 11 on return and compensation, and the closing machinery paragraphs (PDF p.56-58). Annex III lists 28 resolutions referring to resolution 194, from 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 to 32/90 of 13 December 1977 (PDF p.59). The back cover gives the standard how-to-obtain notice and repeats Sales No. E.78.1.21 (PDF p.60).

Key passages

  • “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” — the study quoting Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (The Right of Return of the Palestinian People, PDF p.9).
  • “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country” — the study quoting Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (PDF p.11).
  • “that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their nieghbours 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” — the study quoting paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III), with “nieghbours” as printed (PDF p.20).
  • “Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh” — the study quoting section 1 of the Israeli Law of Return, 1950 (PDF p.26).
  • “The clock cannot be put back” — the study quoting the Israeli memorandum at Lausanne, 1949 (PDF p.31).
  • “The Palestinian Arab exodus of 1948 is one of those cataclysmic phenomena which, according to the experience of other countries, change the course of history” — M. Shertok in Annex I (PDF p.55).

Evidence the work relies on

  • The classical and early-modern texts and instruments as the study presents them: Euripides, Plato, Vitoria, the Magna Carta, Vattel and the French Constitution of 1791 (PDF p.8-9).
  • United Nations instruments and records as the study presents them: the 1946 ECOSOC resolution and the International Refugee Organisation charter preamble; the Universal Declaration and the Covenant, with the 1971 Namibia Advisory Opinion and an International Commission of Jurists study on their status; the 1973 ECOSOC draft principles (PDF p.9-12).
  • The Mediator’s Progress Report (A/648) for the exodus, its causes as he stated them, his 26 July 1948 proposal, Israel’s 1 August reply (reproduced at Annex I) and his recommendations (PDF p.14-19, p.53-55).
  • The Economic Survey Mission report (A/AC.25/6) for the 726,000 and 17,000 refugee figures and, through the Conciliation Commission record, its chairman’s compensation recommendations (PDF p.15, p.32-33).
  • Janet Abu Lughod’s demographic chapter for the 1967 and 1970 diaspora distributions (PDF p.15).
  • UNSCOP’s report for the partition population estimates (PDF p.16).
  • The Ad Hoc Political Committee records of Israel’s admission debates, and resolution 273 (III) as quoted (PDF p.22-25).
  • Joseph Badi (ed.), Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel (1961), for the texts of the Law of Return, the Nationality Law and the Absentees’ Property Law (PDF p.26-29; notes, PDF p.48).
  • The Conciliation Commission’s own reports and its Historical Survey (A/AC.25/W.81/Rev.2), including the June 1949 and October 1950 reports and the November 1951 Paris proposals (PDF p.31-37).
  • The Keren Kayemeth Leisrael’s Jewish Villages in Israel (1949) for land ownership in Israel (PDF p.30).
  • The General Assembly resolutions of 1968-1977 as quoted, with their votes in the notes, the Israeli statement at A/32/PV.27, and the Committee’s 1976 report (A/31/35) (PDF p.39-44, p.50-51).
  • Resolution 194 (III) itself, reproduced at Annex II, and the 28 referring resolutions listed at Annex III (PDF p.56-59).

Analysis

The study is an institutional brief, prepared by a United Nations unit for the committee charged with the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights, and its method is accumulation: a legal genealogy establishing return as a general principle, a documentary chain establishing it specifically in resolution 194, and then three records of non-implementation — Israel’s admission assurances against its later sovereignty claim and legislation, the Conciliation Commission’s reports 1949-1951, and the Assembly’s annual reiterations to 1977. Its strongest documentary material is quoted at length and sourced in the notes: the Mediator’s proposal and Israel’s written refusal, the admission exchanges on Article 2(7), the statutory texts, and the Commission’s own admissions of failure. Its limits are those of its mandate. The historical chapter is expressly a summary resting on the Mediator, the Economic Survey Mission and one demographer; opposing positions enter mainly as quoted Israeli statements — the Lausanne memorandum, the 1955 sovereignty statement, the A/32/PV.27 statement and Annex I — which the study presents as evidence of refusal rather than engaging their premises; and the legal argument moves from the customary status claimed for the Declaration to the specific obligation claimed for Israel without addressing enforcement, which the quoted Commission of Jurists passage itself flags as dependent on Article 41 declarations and the Optional Protocol. The study’s vote lists and annexes make its reiteration claim checkable within the volume, and its internal inconsistencies (see Open questions) are left unresolved in the text.

People, organizations, places and events

Concepts

How it relates to other sources

Open questions

  • Resolution 242 is dated “11 November 1967” at PDF p.21 and “22 November 1967” at PDF p.39. Both dates are as printed in the original; the study does not reconcile them.
  • Resolution 302 (IV) is dated 8 December 1949 in Annex III (PDF p.59) and in the body’s account of UNRWA’s establishment, but 9 December 1949 in the Chapter VII notes (PDF p.50). Held as printed in each place.
  • The admission resolution 273 (III) is introduced at PDF p.25 as “Security Council Resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949”, while the paragraphs then quoted begin “The General Assembly … Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations”. The study does not note the discrepancy.
  • The International Commission of Jurists study quoted at PDF p.11 describes the Universal Declaration as “the product of a unanimous vote (but with 5 abstentions)”, while the study’s own Chapter II note at PDF p.45 records the Declaration “was adopted by 48 votes in favour, none against, with 8 abstentions”. Both figures stand as printed.
  • The body at PDF p.44 states the Committee’s specific recommendations are “at Annex IV”, but the annex list at PDF p.52 lists only Annexes I-III and the volume ends after Annex III. Whether an Annex IV was omitted from this printing is not explained in the volume.
  • The body at PDF p.15 (Chapter III) gives the Mediator’s preliminary Jewish-refugee estimate as 7,000, revised to 17,000 by the Economic Survey Mission; the Chapter III notes assign the underlying pages of A/648 and A/AC.25/6 without separating the two figures’ sources beyond those citations.
  • The Israeli statement quoted at PDF p.41-42 lists the Jewish refugees’ countries of origin twice and differently: at PDF p.41 as “Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the rest of North Africa”, and at PDF p.42 as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen and other Arab countries (wording verified against the original; the text copy garbles the second list). Both lists stand as printed.
  • Annex II, paragraph 2(a), as printed, gives the Mediator’s functions by reference to “Resolution 182 (S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948” (PDF p.56). The number is recorded as printed; the study offers no comment on it.
  • The study quotes the Committee’s 1976 second phase as relating to “Palestinians displaced between 1948 and 1967” (PDF p.43) where the surrounding passage defines the second phase as the Palestinians displaced in 1948; the wording stands as printed.

Coverage

PDF p.1-60 of 60, read in full.

Graph View

Backlinks