The most controversial, devious, persistent, misunderstood, and absurdly impossible demand from the Palestinians is the so-called "Right of Return". On the surface, to naively humane onlookers, this demand masquerades as a basic human right, a heart-breaking desire to return to ancestral homes where families laid down deep roots. These were homes lost in the chaos of war or from which people were forcibly expelled, as they tell it, by an unjust, abusive military force. It is a narrative invoking images of historical wrongs and generational suffering. From this perspective, this Right is a redress or reparation for a human-engineered catastrophe. At the very least, they say, it seeks to look beyond politics and blame, and to return families to their homes.
In this article, we will peel back the layers and explore multiple dimensions of this so-called "right", exposing the realities and deeper implications that are conveniently ignored. We'll cut through the glossy, manipulative façade and get to the heart of what this demand truly represents. We will demonstrate that this demand embodies the core of the conflict.
This article doesn’t just aim to refute or reject this particular Palestinian demand. We will demonstrate how this demand lies at the very heart of the friction and animosity—not only between Palestinians and Israelis but also between the Western world and Israel. In fact, it represents true intentions hiding behind a façade of humanitarian sentiment. When studied on multiple layers, it exposes hypocrisy along with contradictory and distorted narratives. Ironically, a proper understanding of this demand reveals that it ultimately uproots and flips the Palestinian claim to the land on its head.
The Legal Basis
Although the term "right" implies that it is based on international law, there is actually no law that establishes such a right:
Although declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country", these are not legally binding treaties, but declarations that set forth general principles of human rights, upon which treaties between states can be based (if they so choose). These are recommended standards, not legally binding laws.
Furthermore, even the above wording is limited to citizens of a "country", whereas Palestinians had no country to return to. They had/have none because they chose to attack Israel instead of establishing one. Furthermore, another way to look at this is that the majority of Palestinian refugees are already in their "country" of the Mandate for Palestine. The right is to return to your "country", not to your "home".
I have yet to hear of a single instance where refugees sued a state for repatriation based on international law. Imagine the international chaos and millions of lawsuits that would ensue if such a law existed and applied to all refugees from any war. Moreover, imagine the extreme chaos if this law applied to the descendants of refugees. Everyone could present multiple lawsuits against several countries based on such a law. There is no international law of repatriation.
In comparison, the Jewish "Law of Return" granting Jews the right to become citizens of Israel is purely a domestic state law. Israel is not demanding this of the world as an international law, but as a right given by Israel to Jews.
The international laws that do exist concerning refugees deal with their protection and asylum, not repatriation. Repatriation is left to sovereign states, responsible for their own immigration and border policies, as well as to treaties and agreements. The only lawsuits that exist are based on wrongful expulsions based on state laws or existing treaties.
In the specific case of Palestinians, the legal basis is, unsurprisingly, UN Resolution 194, issued specifically and exceptionally for their case. The vote was a slim majority of 35 out of 58. However, General Assembly Resolutions such as these are not legally binding; therefore, this is merely another recommendation, not a law.
Included in this resolution is the condition that it only applies to "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours". We will refer to this important condition in later sections.
Most importantly and ironically—a fact that is universally overlooked—all of the Arab States voted against this resolution and the Palestinians themselves rejected it! They did this because the resolution included recognition of the State of Israel. The Mufti al-Husseini signed a decree refusing the return of refugees if it meant negotiating with Israel.
In summary, this is not a legal right but a demand by the Palestinians, one which can only be negotiated with Israel towards an agreement. Israel would not be breaking any laws by denying this demand. Furthermore, even international recommended ideals for repatriation condition such return on peaceful intentions as well as on treaties. Finally, in an absurd twist of overlooked history, even if the UN resolution upon which this demand is based were interpreted as binding, it was rejected by the Palestinians themselves.
Demographic Jihad
The perception that Muslims are conquering the West through demographics is undeniably controversial. Notwithstanding the skepticism, the numbers and statistics, including those on crime, are impossible to dismiss by anyone not wearing ideological blinders. Many commentators and writers have long sounded alarms about the potential collapse of Europe, the USA, and Western culture. For some, this goes beyond fears of a cultural melting-pot into outright visions of a takeover or a grim forecast of Sharia law inevitably being imposed on European nations. Some even propound the idea that this is not a mere accident due to border policies, but a calculated, deliberate and aggressive strategy by Muslims. Naturally, such opinions are swiftly crammed into the "far-right" box in hopes of discrediting and burying them. Yet, recent shifts in public sentiment and voting patterns suggest the majority are far from dismissing these concerns.
Although this so-called "demographic jihad" may not be part of classic Islamic doctrine, that hasn’t stopped some Muslims from celebrating it as a goal. As one example of many, large groups of German Muslims have openly called for a caliphate to be established in Germany. Most famously, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi declared in a 2006 speech to thousands: "We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
So far, this discussion has focused on a slow demographic takeover, a future that some Westerners might continue to contest, downplay or ignore given the gradual, slow nature of this process. But what would the same people think of the prospect of an instant takeover? Would even the most migration-friendly progressives accept a Muslim majority in just a year or two? Would anyone in the West feel content under laws that criminalize "immodest" clothing and outlaw night-clubs, among other freedoms? Would the United States agree to welcome a wave of 400 million Muslims, creating an instant majority and guaranteeing election victories for an Islamic agenda? Note that this is without touching on the economic chaos such a scenario would inevitably unleash.
One doesn't need to lean right to grasp the repercussions of such an event. You can cling onto the belief that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding, and friendly while still questioning whether this is an outcome you could accept. Just take a long, hard look at any of the many dozens of Muslim-majority countries today and ask yourself: is this the kind of country you'd want to call home?
This is what the "Right of Return" and its international supporters are demanding of Israel. The demand is to allow 5 to 9 million Palestinians to flood into Israel, joining the 2 million Arabs already there. This would instantly transform Israel—with its 7 million Jews—into an Arab-majority state, potentially ruled under Sharia law. And that’s the best-case scenario.
Even under the painfully naive assumption that these incoming Arabs would be peaceful and willing to forget a hundred-year-old grudge and their animosity toward Jews, Israel would no longer exist as a Jewish state. It would no longer serve as a safe haven for Jews worldwide. The Jews will lose their one and only state, and this would be accomplished under the guise of "humanitarian" concerns. At best, it’s an underhanded implementation of the highly unpopular "one-state solution"—a solution which effectively means the replacement of a Jewish state with a Palestinian state. The "Right of Return" is a back-door.
For decades, countless Arab leaders and writers have openly and unapologetically denied Israel's right to exist. This isn't some hidden agenda; it's a well-documented and openly stated fact. As previously noted, they even rejected the UN resolution granting them the right to return to Israel because it conflicted with this principle. This leaves us with a glaring contradiction that demands an answer: how can one simultaneously reject Israel's legitimacy while insisting on a right of return to a state they claim has no right to exist?
In 1949, the Egyptian foreign minister Muhammad Salah al-Din answered this question in the only way possible: "It is well known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel." (al-Misri, October 11, 1949, quoted in Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel, 28).
Five years later, he writes: "The truth of the matter is that we are not all content with the implementation of UN decisions. And if the Arab statesmen have found a diplomatic and tactical way out of their embarrassment at the UN rostrum and at press conferences, the Arab peoples will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East." (al-Misri, April 12, 1954).
A Lebanese weekly newspaper Al-Sayyad declared in 1949 a more devious plan based on peace: "We are unable to return [the refugees] honourably. Let us therefore try to make them a fifth column in the struggle yet before us. Up to now they [the Jews] argued that there was a state of war between us and could not ask them to accept soldiers, enemies, into their midst. But at present, if we shall appear in the guise of peace-seekers, they will have no argument." (Quoted in Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem, 24).
These quotes greatly reinforce and intensify the argument laid out in this section, but, frankly, this stated plan is the only logical way the Right of Return can be synthesized with the Palestinian charters, both of which continue to deny Israel's right to exist until today (the PLO charter was never actually changed despite promises).
Although the latter plan seems to advocate for a takeover solely through demographics and a fifth column, this narrow interpretation is ridiculously optimistic. For the realistic repercussions of this demand, one which takes the words "liquidation" and "obliteration" at face value, see the next section.
Long after these events, during the Oslo peace process, a different variation of this paradox emerged: If the PLO was now genuinely seeking peace with Israel and had recognized its right to exist, why did they continue to demand a full Right of Return—a demand that everyone understood would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state? The answer to this second paradox mirrors the first.
Additionally, once you grasp where the Palestinians' priorities truly lay, the so-called riddle of why they rejected every peace plan becomes straightforward: all the plans excluded the Right of Return. Many Fatah memos and articles confirm this, as well as an op-ed article in 2002 by Arafat himself in the NY Times, and Abbas's rejection in 2008: "I can’t tell four million Palestinians that only five thousand of them can go home."
As to the goal of the Right of Return, Arafat said in 1980: "When we speak of the Palestinians’ return, we want to say: Acre before Gaza, Beersheba before Hebron. We recognize one thing, namely that the Palestinian flag will fly over Jaffa."
This goal is further exemplified by the subtle yet deliberate demand from Palestinians to replace the phrase “two states for two peoples” with “two states living side-by-side in peace". At first glance, the change may seem innocuous while emphasizing peace, but it carries profound implications — suggesting, in essence, that the two states would be for one people. This seemingly minor shift in wording, namely, the erasure of "two peoples", is a telling reflection of this devious Palestinian strategy and its ongoing war on Israel, serving as a key to understanding the deeper problems of the region. As such, this requested change demands deep reflection. Ask yourself: why would they demand this change if both phrases carried the same meaning?
A Holocaust by Any Other Name
The harsh reality in Israel-Palestine was described in this first article, and is the one that all peace plans, negotiations, diplomatic efforts and legal discussions must contend with to achieve any success: Numerous polls conducted by Arabs on Palestinians tell us that around 75% of Palestinian citizens—not extremist terrorists and political leaders—reject Israel's right to exist, favoring "from the river to the sea" over a two- or one-state solution, that between 80-90% of citizens openly support terrorism, and that given the chance and the power to do so, most would ensure that no Jews remain in the entirety of Palestine. These figures, which have shown only slight variation over decades, underline this very clear but grim reality, and their charters confirm this goal by refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist for a century. Even if the numbers were somehow proven wrong, it would take just 5-10% to result in widespread violence against Jews. Their support for Judenfrei is substantiated not only by polls but also by candid interviews on the street where they state their intentions openly.
These intentions are far more than mere words or angry emotions; they have been demonstrated through actions that are even more extreme. On October 7, 2023, Palestinian citizens joined Hamas in their attack on Israel, committing heinous acts of butchery, rape, and massacres against unarmed men, women, and children in their homes and at festivals, in the most brutal ways imaginable. Citizens who remained in Gaza celebrated and spat on the broken bodies of raped Jewish women, as they were paraded on pickup trucks.
As mentioned in the first section, the UN Resolution 194, upon which the Right of Return is based, explicitly conditioned the return of Palestinians on their "wish to live at peace with their neighbours". To say this condition was not fulfilled would be an absurd understatement.
Given this harsh reality, the resulting demographics described in the previous section, and the fact that the government and military resources of Israel would be overtaken by a Muslim majority, the outcome would be nothing short of another Holocaust. Advocating for a "Right of Return" is tantamount to the West calling for Hitler to annex another European country brimming with Jews.
Exceptionalism Ad Absurdum
Many have highlighted the unique roles and rules of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) and of Palestinian refugees—standards not applied elsewhere. However, the extremely absurd consequences of this exceptionalism are often underestimated.
Unlike millions of other refugees worldwide, whose status can be and is resolved through resettlement in other homes or countries, Palestinian refugees retain their refugee status indefinitely, even after they resettle and achieve financial stability or acquire citizenship in another country. The UN has countered that UNRWA was never tasked with resettlement, only with providing aid. However, this claim is both imprecise and misleading: UNRWA was established as a temporary agency to provide immediate relief to Palestinian refugees, with its initial mandate intended to last only a year while solutions to the Palestinian refugee crisis were implemented. Based on Palestinian demands for changes, the UNRWA mandate affirms as its goals the UN Resolution 194 paragraph 11 which addresses the refugees' right of return. This is emphasized in both the introduction and clause 20 of the mandate. Clause 5 further specifies that aid is to be provided without prejudice to paragraph 11. What this means in effect is that UNRWA's framework singularly focuses on "return" as the resolution for Palestinian refugees and explicitly defines this as one of UNRWA's tasks, while neglecting other potential solutions, such as permanent resettlement elsewhere. Additionally, the mandate states that even those who receive resettlement aid should continue to be recognized as refugees until they return to their ancestral homes. This unique approach ensures that Palestinian refugee status is perpetuated indefinitely, unlike the practices of UNHCR, which prioritizes integration, resettlement, and the resolution of refugee status by other, practical means.
Originally, with the precursor to UNWRA, the directives given to the "United Nations Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East" and the "Clapp Mission" included the option to resettle the refugees. But, once UNWRA was formed, due to pressure from Arabs, this option was taken off the table. In the minutes of a UN General Assembly session in 1950, Arab representatives repeatedly demanded that only repatriation should be a valid solution because "Palestine refugees differed from all other refugees". They fought this tooth and nail, even to the absurd extreme of physically destroying resettlement projects.
All other UN refugee organizations, such as UNKRA (United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency) and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), were designed and operated as temporary initiatives, operating with the help of international charity until the refugee crises they addressed were resolved through resettlement, repatriation, or integration. In contrast, UNRWA is unique in that it is not structured to close or wind down, since it has no path to closure without a political resolution that includes the return of refugees as defined by UN Resolution 194.
Another unique aspect is that Palestinian refugee status is automatically passed down through multiple generations and has now spanned five generations (including the original parents). While the UN has argued that other refugees around the world also inherit refugee status, this counter-claim is incorrect: In most cases, the extension of refugee status to children is determined on a case-by-case basis and typically applies only to dependents who are part of a family unit in immediate need. This approach ensures assistance is provided to those currently vulnerable, rather than establishing an automatic, hereditary refugee status regardless of the individual’s current circumstances or age. What sets the Palestinian case apart is the combination of automatic inheritance of refugee status and the absence of resettlement options, which results in the exponential growth of Palestinian refugees that we see today. In all other contexts, refugee populations shrink over time as individuals are resettled, integrated, or no longer qualify for refugee assistance.
Building on the above, it is worth noting that UN Resolution 194 refers to Palestinians returning to their homes, not their ancestral homes. How can grandchildren, born and raised in a family home that has belonged to their family for generations, demand to "return to their homes" when they are already living in one?
Additionally, of the over 5 million Palestinian "refugees," 2 million reside within Palestine itself, and another 2 million live in Jordan, a territory that was once part of the Mandate for Palestine. To grasp the absurdity of this classification, imagine a Ukrainian citizen who loses their home during the war, relocates to another city within Ukraine with financial aid from the government or the UN, and is then still labeled a "refugee of Ukraine."
To
set the record straight on "refugee camps": Although most people
imagine tents or hovels, in reality they consist of permanent structures
in towns and cities with stores and businesses. Here are some sample
pictures: Al-Shati, Jabalia 1, 2, Shuf'at in Jerusalem, Balata in the West Bank, and so on.
In summary, imagine a Palestinian who may be well-off, who owns a business and has established roots in the same house in Palestine for five generations, with his own grandfather being born and raised in the same house as he did, and who voted for a Palestinian government. This man is considered a refugee of Palestine who deserves charity from the world and is encouraged to "return home". This doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless, in his mind, he interprets this as a right to "take back Israel".
World Support for Terrorism
This brings us to the rest of the world and its support for organizations such as UNWRA. UNWRA presents a most fundamental and essential link to the Right of Return, and provides the basic underpinning for terrorism, as will be explained after some important preliminaries.
There has been much hullabaloo in 2024 over the fact that several UNWRA members took part in terrorists attacks on October 7, 2023. In one case, there was even video evidence released online. Absurdly, the UN investigated itself, rejected evidence or claimed insufficient proof, and only fired a few employees after pressure. Then it claimed these were merely "a handful of rotten apples", and, in an unbelievable twist, demanded immunity for terrorist activities committed by its own employees.
However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. And the iceberg is only a part of a whole ecosystem:
The IDF claims that many hundreds of UNWRA employees are Hamas members, though the source of this information is mostly classified. More importantly, the question is not how many UNWRA employees picked up a gun or signed up with Hamas, but how many support Hamas. This includes allowing Hamas to store weapons in and build tunnels under UNWRA schools and facilities, and in their homes, harboring hostages, praising Hamas activities in social media, teaching children to support terrorism, and so on. When one UNWRA teacher affiliated with Hamas was suspended, 8000 teachers went to strike in solidarity. Here is just one sample report of these widespread activities.
UNWRA facilities have repeatedly been shown in videos to be linked to Hamas terror tunnels. This is not merely about the proximity of tunnel entrances to the facilities, but about physical connections between the tunnels and the facilities, including power cables going through the floor of the UNWRA facility down to the tunnels, powering the equipment below. Such infrastructure is obviously impossible without full and extensive support for Hamas within UNWRA. Additionally, here is a sample video of mortar bombs fired from UNWRA schools, and this is only one of many videos showing armed Hamas gunmen operating from within UN facilities.
While much of this has come to light recently, the UN Watch organization has been accumulating evidence of support for terror within UNWRA for decades. Its findings, reported to the UN multiple times, have been met with nothing but blatant hostility. This evidence includes a collection of social media posts from 200 UNWRA employees that demonstrate their support for terrorism, the glorification of terror attacks, spreading of antisemitism, and incitement to violence.
But the most far-reaching, horrifying activity in which UNWRA partakes, is the indoctrination of children: Brainwashing them with antisemitic ideas and distorted history, calling children to murder Jews, training children with weapons, and having them partake in plays involving stabbing of Jews. This is in addition to children's shows glorifying terrorism and murder. Here is one detailed 70-page report by Impact-SE presenting mountains of evidence with sources.
By training children in the ways of hate and terrorism, they are raising a whole new generation of dedicated terrorists, and all without lifting a single gun.
The paragraphs above condense mountains of evidence equating UNWRA with terrorism into a few lines. It is highly recommended to view some of these reports and videos, because seeing is believing. That said, anyone governed by common sense doesn’t need any of this evidence. Consider the following simple argument:
UNWRA employs 13,000 people in the Gaza strip alone, and 30,000 overall, almost all of whom are local Palestinians. Of the 2 million people living in Gaza, roughly 50% are under the age of 18, leaving fewer than one-million employable adults. If we account for the elderly or infirm, that would reduce the number by roughly another 10%. Polls show that between 80-90% of Palestinians support terrorism, but, frankly, even this figure is an understatement. The poll specifically asked whether respondents view the role of purely military terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad as positive (in this example, 85%). The remaining 15% may view their role as negative, not because they oppose terrorism, but for other reasons, such as the danger these groups pose to Arab citizens, or due to a preference for other terrorist groups, or even dissatisfaction with their effectiveness in waging war against Israel. Even if we optimistically assume that this 15% disapproves of terrorist methods, it’s doubtful their stance translates into active resistance against terrorist pressure. Therefore just because someone doesn’t openly support terrorist groups in polls doesn’t mean they oppose terrorism—or have the strong principles to resist pressure and coercion. Therefore, of the 800,000 employable people in Gaza, removing 90% based on poll data leaves only 80,000, and even this number must be greatly reduced if we were to filter for genuinely terrorist-resistant Palestinians.
Now, ask yourself: what are the odds that the UN hires exclusively from this tiny subset of terrorist-resistant Palestinians? Do you think they rigorously vetted every employee’s background, ideologies, and social media activity? After they are hired, do they monitor them for terrorist sympathies or track whether they succumbed to pressure from a terrorist-dominated society? Given these facts and numbers, why is anyone surprised when videos emerge of UNWRA employees praising the murder of Jewish civilians?
This is akin to establishing a charity in a community overtaken by neo-Nazis, staffing it with 99.9% locals, and then debating whether a smattering of evidence warrants firing a few individuals, while claiming they represent only "a handful of rotten apples." It’s a textbook case of missing the forest for the trees. And when the organization’s managers deny this glaringly obvious systemic problem, their complicity becomes undeniable.
Not only does UNWRA employ terrorists and terrorist supporters, and not only does it train the next generation of terrorists, it also frees up resources and time for Hamas to focus exclusively on terrorism. The way this works is that the international community foots the bill for Gaza’s healthcare and education, allowing Hamas—the elected government—to channel most of its money and energy into building tunnels and stockpiling weapons. Think about that one.
What does all this have to do with the Right of Return? Ask yourself: what does it take to sustain a century of unrelenting hostility? To cling to the delusion that terrorism, despite a hundred years of spectacular failure, might still deliver the goal they have established for themselves? It all hinges on a desperate hope, that the clock can somehow be rewound, that their war to obliterate Israel wasn't lost, that their claim to the land still holds legitimacy. Sure, the Palestinians rejected Israel's right to exist all on their own. But when the world backs this delusion, when it proclaims their "Right of Return" as sacred and treats their demands to take back Israel as justifiable, it breathes life into a fantasy that should have long been buried. By labeling them permanent refugees, unlike every other refugee group in the world, and insisting that the only solution is a return to their pre-1948 homes, the global community ensures this violent dream remains vivid, eternal, and dangerously alive.
And who fuels this perpetual grievance machine? UNRWA and its supporters. Millions of other refugees worldwide have been told to resettle, to rebuild their lives, and move on, and they have all done so successfully. The Palestinians, however are told that no matter how long it takes, no matter what destruction follows, the only acceptable solution is to return to 1948 and take back Israel/Palestine. UNRWA has built an extensive educational system ensuring that, for 70 years now, generations of children grow up with school anthems literally promising to shed their blood for the "return." All textbooks, literature, and maps repeatedly glorify the ultimate "return". Thus, these architects of misery pour gasoline on the fire, escalating the
conflict instead of resolving it, all literally in the name of the "Right of
Return". UNRWA perpetuates the problem, inflaming hatred, and prolonging
the war. Given that this is an internationally funded organization, the world is therefore not only encouraging and funding terrorism, it provides the terrorists with their primary weapon: hearts and minds.
The champion of this argument is Einat Wilf, who delivers an even stronger and more historically-oriented version of this analysis in numerous online videos and in her excellent book "The War of Return" (co-written with Adi Schwartz). I highly recommend watching this riveting, razor-sharp, and taut speech, and reading the detailed book for a comprehensive historical account of the refugee and UNRWA issues.
In addition to many of the absurdities outlined in this article, the book describes many shocking historical episodes. For instance, it recounts how, already back in 1964–66, the USA discovered that UNRWA was not only employing but also funding PLO soldiers—a terrorist organization not only dedicated to Israel's annihilation, but also armed by the Soviets, even pledging support to North Vietnam. Refugee camps became full-fledged terrorist training camps already in the 60s. Yet, as with every U.S. effort in the 1950s to reform, defund, or dismantle UNRWA, all of these numerous attempts ultimately failed due to relentless Arab pressure and total Arab dominance over the agency. The Arabs ensured and continue ensuring that the narrow focus of this agency would be the Return, and nothing else. This battle to keep UNRWA active and to maintain its singular focus was so extreme and absurd, Arabs even destroyed resettlement projects initiated by other Arabs.
In summary, UNRWA is not an aid organization helping people in need. It is a terrorist factory hiding under the banner of the UN, training and indoctrinating generations of terrorists, and perpetuating the war. The Right of Return is the cornerstone of this grotesque charade and not only does it provide UNRWA with its sole raison d'être, it provides the primary drive that fuels the conflict.
Whitewashing Palestinian Violence
We will now shift to other hidden aspects of the Right of Return. The Right of Return includes a sweeping demand for the unconditional return of all refugees. This raises a critical question: since when do terrorists have the right to demand anything? It is an undisputed fact that the 1947–48 wars were initiated by Palestinians, many of whom targeted not only soldiers but also Israeli civilians in settlements and ambulances. While it’s true that not all Palestinians participated in violence against Israel, what about those who did?
Ordinarily, murderers and their accomplices and supporters face prison sentences. In wartime, such individuals are often killed, imprisoned, or at best, if they are political criminals spreading hateful ideologies or inciting violence, expelled from the country. What these people cannot do is demand repatriation. This is beyond hutzpah.
Labeling such individuals as mere "refugees who lost their homes" erases their crimes from the narrative. Certainly, efforts should be made to distinguish between those who support terrorism and those who genuinely wish to live peacefully with their neighbors. But why is it that this distinction is rarely, if ever, considered when advocating for the Right of Return?
Proof of Israeli Benevolence
If you were a refugee from a country that you claim inflicted great cruelty on you, massacring your people, raping your women, practicing ethnic cleansing and genocide on your people, and you somehow escaped or were lucky enough to be merely expelled, would you want to return to that country? Do Armenians, as a group, wish to return to Turkey? Do Jews that were expelled from Arab countries, leaving all of their possessions behind, yearn to return to those hostile lands?
The Right of Return raises a question no one seems to ask: Why are all Palestinians so unwary, confident and comfortable with the idea of returning to the supposedly hostile land of Israel full of genocidal Israelis? There are only three possible answers:
They intend to implement a hostile takeover of Israel, thus eliminating the threat.
Israel was never as hostile to them as they led people to believe.
Both of the above. Seeing as the Palestinians could agree to a Return in stages, this is the only answer that makes sense.
Proving Jewish Rights to All the Land
Ironically, the Right of Return completely backfires on the Palestinians in the most extreme way: If refugees have an international right to return to their ancestral homes, and if this right extends beyond five generations to descendants born in other countries, then there’s no reason this principle shouldn’t apply to all refugees — even those displaced eighty generations ago.
To wit, Jews once owned and settled the land from the river to the sea, starting with the time of Joshua and especially under the Kingdom of David, including even Gaza in later periods. Jews lived in this land exclusively for centuries, and in some areas, for over a thousand years, until they were forcibly expelled, creating the longest-running refugee problem in human history.
If Palestinians can claim a multi-generational Right of Return, then the Jewish Right of Return, by its earlier precedence, must take priority and supersede it. You cannot argue for one without acknowledging the other.
This and other similar self-contradictions in the Palestinian narrative were covered in a previous article.
Summary
As stated in the opening, the Palestinian Right of Return is not the humane plea it appears to be which involves returning grandmothers to their ancestral homes, nor is it merely a negotiating point in the peace process. It is a rallying cry for war and terrorism, both a symbol and the means by which the destruction of Israel is supposed to be achieved. It is the reason the peace plans have failed. It serves as a façade and banner under which the world is misled into funding and supporting terrorism. It also exposes several absurdities, hypocrisies and contradictions in the Palestinian narrative. To entertain this demand any further is to continue a grotesque charade that perpetuates violence.