An interesting article made its way into the Jordan Times this week. It concerned what the PLO calls the ?right of return of the Palestinian refugees.? That is, the alleged right of Arabs who were made refugees during the Israeli War of Independence to reclaim those lands they fled in 1948. The Jordan Times article, surprisingly, cites the weaknesses of the Arab claim, based on the 1948 UN resolution 194 consistently mentioned by PLO spokespeople.
The article explains exactly what elements are included in Un Resolution 194: ?the establishment of a United Nations Conciliation Commission, the placement of Jerusalem under a permanent international regime and last but not least the "resolve" to give the Palestinian refugees the right to return to their "homes" or receive compensation.? Thus, argues the Times piece, the demand for the ?right of return? under the UN would, of necessity, include the internationalization of Jerusalem and its environs, even out as far as Bethlehem. Furthermore, the resolution itself was passed in the UN General Assembly and, as such, has no enforcement mechanism, even were it to have been decided that the resolution must be carried out.
Yet the historical fact that the Jordan Times article refers to as ?most embarrassing? is that ?all the Arab states ...voted against that resolution [194].? Another historical difficulty is that UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is held to be the mandate for land-for-peace Israeli-Arab negotiations since 1967, ?said nothing about that resolution [194] when touching about [sic] the Palestinian refugee issue.? Resolution 242, the Jordanian piece says, in its call for ?achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem,? is actually ?a far cry from calling for the implementation of Resolution 194.? The other element of 194, internationalization of Jerusalem, the Times article points out, ?was reaffirmed time and time again? but not the part about the right to return of the Palestinians.?
Therefore, with the foregoing in mind, the Jordanian editorial recommends that ?the Palestinian insistence on the right of return must rest not only on Resolution 194, but also on international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)?? Yet, here, too, there may be some embarrassing double talk, as ?many Arab countries [have] yet to adopt [them].?
The article explains exactly what elements are included in Un Resolution 194: ?the establishment of a United Nations Conciliation Commission, the placement of Jerusalem under a permanent international regime and last but not least the "resolve" to give the Palestinian refugees the right to return to their "homes" or receive compensation.? Thus, argues the Times piece, the demand for the ?right of return? under the UN would, of necessity, include the internationalization of Jerusalem and its environs, even out as far as Bethlehem. Furthermore, the resolution itself was passed in the UN General Assembly and, as such, has no enforcement mechanism, even were it to have been decided that the resolution must be carried out.
Yet the historical fact that the Jordan Times article refers to as ?most embarrassing? is that ?all the Arab states ...voted against that resolution [194].? Another historical difficulty is that UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is held to be the mandate for land-for-peace Israeli-Arab negotiations since 1967, ?said nothing about that resolution [194] when touching about [sic] the Palestinian refugee issue.? Resolution 242, the Jordanian piece says, in its call for ?achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem,? is actually ?a far cry from calling for the implementation of Resolution 194.? The other element of 194, internationalization of Jerusalem, the Times article points out, ?was reaffirmed time and time again? but not the part about the right to return of the Palestinians.?
Therefore, with the foregoing in mind, the Jordanian editorial recommends that ?the Palestinian insistence on the right of return must rest not only on Resolution 194, but also on international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)?? Yet, here, too, there may be some embarrassing double talk, as ?many Arab countries [have] yet to adopt [them].?