Memo to France: There Is No Palestinian Right of Return to Israel
Grave of French Colonel Alfred Dreyfus. Photo: LPLT. CC 4.0
8/28/2025, 3:01:20 AM
It is hard to fathom France’s irresponsible behavior. Besides the proposal for illegal unilateral recognition of a so-called “Palestinian state” (as detailed in, Munich Betrayal 2.0-Perfidious appeasement will fail yet again), Yigal Carmon of Memri posted on X that the document France submitted for the UN General Assembly in September, which was published by the French Foreign Ministry on July 29, 2025, expressly provides, in paragraph 39, for an “affirmation of the right of return”.
Ofer Bronstein, Special Envoy of the President of France, responded to Carmon’s post on X and stated that it was an error, which France would be correcting, by providing instead that “The parties will negotiate among themselves on a solution to the refugee issue”. He also thanked Carmon for his understanding and his justified concern. Carmon thanked Bronstein in a reply post on X and asked to be sent the new version in the official government publication when it comes out.
The improbable claim that this was all just some innocent mistake strains credulity. More likely, is that there was a disagreement about the correct policy to be pursued. It begs the question of what France is actually thinking as it pursues its misguided approach of appeasement of Hamas and terrorism that actually creates, rather than resolves, an existential threat to Israel. The policy is neither legal nor moral. In this regard it should be noted that Germany just announced it will not join with France in recognizing a “Palestinian state”.
There is no so-called Palestinian Arab ‘right of return’ to Israel. Subparagraph (b) of UNSC Resolution 242 is a provision that must be closely read and understood. Notice it does not refer only to Arab refugees. The USSR had attempted to limit 242 only to Palestinian Arab refugees, but it was unsuccessful.
As Arthur Goldberg, the US ambassador to the UN, who was directly involved in negotiating 242, said:
The Resolution addresses the objective of ‘achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.’ This language refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars …
Resolution 242 would thus include a just settlement of the problem of all refugees, including the Jewish ones. Notice, too, there is no qualifier that relates the problem to Israel only and premises the problem on the nature of its creation. Rather, it is a neutral and universal reference to the refugee problem.
There have been a number of resolutions introduced in Congress, which sought to address the problem of Jewish as well as Arab refugees. One example is House Resolution 838, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the creation of refugee populations in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region as a result of Human Rights violations. It notes:
1. Jews and other ethnic groups have lived mostly as minorities in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region for more than 2,500 years, more than 1,000 years before the advent of Islam;
2. A comprehensive peace in the region will require the resolution of all outstanding issues through bilateral and multilateral negotiations involving all concerned parties;
3. While the discussion of refugees in the Middle East generally centers on [Arab] Palestinian refugees, nevertheless, the estimates indicate that, as a result of the 1948 war in which numerous Arab armies attacked the newly-founded State of Israel, more Jews (approximately 850,000) were displaced from Arab countries than were [Arab] Palestinians (approximately 726,000) from Israel;
4. The United States is concerned about the mistreatment, violation of rights, forced expulsion, and expropriation of assets of minority populations in general, and in particular, former Jewish refugees displaced from Arab countries;
5. A Memorandum of Understanding signed by President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan on October 4, 1977, refers to the need for a solution to the problem of Arab refugees and Jewish refugees;
6. After negotiating the Camp David Accords, the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, President Jimmy Carter stated in a press conference on October 27, 1977 that Palestinians have rights … obviously there are Jewish refugees … they have the same rights as others do;
7. In an interview with Israeli television immediately after the issue of the rights of Jews displaced from Arab lands was discussed at Camp David II in July 2000, President Clinton stated clearly that [t]here will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land.
8. The Senate, in a Senate Resolution 76, 85th Congress, agreed to January 29, 1957, noted that individuals in Egypt who are tied by race, religion, or national origin with Israel, France, or the United Kingdom have been subjected to arrest, forced exile, confiscation of property, and other punishments although not charged with any crime;
9. The House, in a Concurrent Resolution 158, 85th Congress, noted that the Government of Egypt had initiated a series of measures against the Jewish community, that many Jews were arrested as a result of such measures, that, beginning in November 1956, many Jews were expelled from Egypt, and that the Jews of Egypt faced sequestration of their goods and assets and denial or revocation of Egyptian citizenship, and resolves that the treatment of Jews in Egypt constituted persecution on account of race, religious beliefs, or political opinions, further resolving that these issues should be raised by the United States either in the United Nations or by other appropriate means; and
10. Congress, in Section 620 of H.R. 3100, 100th Congress, found that with the notable exceptions of Morocco and Tunisia, those Jews remaining in Arab countries continue to suffer deprivations, degradations, and hardships, and continue to live in peril and that Congress calls upon the governments of those Arab countries where Jews still maintain a presence to guarantee their Jewish citizens full civil and human rights, including the right to lead full Jewish lives free of fear and to emigrate if they so choose.
The Congressional resolution went on to say that the seminal United Nations resolution on the Arab-Israeli conflict and other international initiatives refer generally to the plight of refugees and do not make any distinction between Palestinian Arab and Jewish refugees, including the following:
(a) United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, calls for a just settlement of the refugee problem without distinction between [Arab] Palestinian and Jewish refugees. Justice Arthur Goldberg, the United States delegate to the United Nations at that time, has pointed out that a notable omission in 242 is any reference to Palestinians, a Palestinian state on the West Bank or the PLO. The resolution addresses the objective of achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem. This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars;
(b) The Madrid Conference, which was first convened in October 1991 and was co-chaired by United States President George H.W. Bush and President of the U.S.S.R. Mikhail Gorbachev, included delegations from Spain, the European Community, the Netherlands, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, as well as a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. In his opening remarks before the January 28, 1992, organizational meeting for multilateral negotiations on the Middle East in Moscow, United States Secretary of State James Baker made no distinction between Palestinian Arab refugees and Jewish refugees in articulating the mission of the Refugee Working Group, stating that [t]he refugee group will consider practical ways of improving the lot of people throughout the region who have been displaced from their homes; and
(c) The Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, in referring to an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, uses language that is equally applicable to all persons displaced as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.
The Resolution also declares that Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Arabs have affirmed that a comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict will require a just solution to the plight of all refugees, as evidenced by the following:
(1) The 1978 Camp David Accords, the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, includes a commitment by Egypt and Israel to work with each other and with other interested parties to establish agreed procedures for a prompt, just and permanent resolution of the implementation of the refugee problem. The Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt, signed at Washington, D.C. March 26, 1979, in addition to general references to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis for comprehensive peace in the region, provides in Article 8 that the Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims, including those of former Christian and Jewish refugees displaced from Egypt; and
(2) Article 8 of the Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, done at Arava/Araba Crossing Point October 26, 1994, entitled Refugees and Displaced Persons recognizes the massive human problems caused to both Parties by the conflict in the Middle East. The reference to massive human problems in a broad manner suggests that the plight of all refugees of the conflict in the Middle East includes Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
The Resolution concludes by expressing the sense of the House of Representatives, including as follows:
(1) the United States deplores the past and continuing violation of the human rights and religious freedoms of minority populations in Arab countries; and
(2) with respect to Jews and Christians displaced from Arab countries, for any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to be credible, durable, and enduring, constitute an end to conflict in the Middle East, and provide for finality of all claims, the agreement must address and resolve all outstanding issues, including the legitimate rights of all peoples displaced from Arab countries;
The House of Representatives also urged the President to:
- instruct the United States Representative to the United Nations and all United States representatives in bilateral and multilateral fora that, when the United States considers or addresses resolutions that allude to the issue of Middle East refugees, the United States delegation should ensure that—
(A) the relevant text refers to the fact that multiple refugee populations have been caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict; and
(B) any explicit reference to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue is matched by a similar explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.- make clear that the United States Government supports the position that, as an integral part of any comprehensive peace, the issue of refugees and the mass violations of human rights of minorities in Arab countries must be resolved in a manner that includes:
(A) redress for the legitimate rights of all refugees displaced from Arab countries; and
(B) recognition of the fact that Jewish and Christian property, schools, and community property was lost as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
There is a later similar Senate Resolution, as well. It adds some additional details, which are cogent and summarized below:
1. It notes that the international definition of a refugee clearly applies to Jews who fled the persecution of Arab regimes, where a refugee is a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at Geneva July 28, 1951, and entered into force April 22, 1954 (189 UNTS 150)).
2. It reports the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) determined that Jews fleeing from Arab countries were refugees that fell within the mandate of the UNHCR. Thus, in his first statement as newly elected High Commissioner, Mr. Auguste Lindt, at the January 29, 1957, meeting of the United Nations Refugee Fund (UNREF) Executive Committee in Geneva, stated,
“There is already now another emergency problem arising. Refugees from Egypt. And there is no doubt in my mind that those of those refugee who are not able or not willing to avail themselves of the protection of the Government of their nationality, they might have no nationality or they may have lost this nationality, or, for reasons of prosecution may not be willing to avail themselves of this protection, fall under the mandate of the High Commissioner.” (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Report of the UNREF Executive Committee, Fourth Session-Geneva 29 January to 4 February, 1957).
And Dr. E. Jahn, on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, wrote to Daniel Lack, Legal Adviser to the American Joint Distribution Committee, stating, “I refer to our recent discussion concerning Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries in consequence of recent events. I am now able to inform you that such persons may be considered prima facie within the mandate of this Office.” (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Document No. 7/2/3/Libya);
Like the House Resolution noted above, the Senate one states that the seminal United Nations resolution on the Arab-Israeli conflict and other international initiatives refer generally to the plight of “refugees” and do not make any distinction between Palestinian Arab and Jewish refugees.
Thus, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, calls for a “just settlement of the refugee problem” without distinction between Palestinian Arab and Jewish refugees. It goes on to say that this is evidenced by the failed attempt by the United Nations delegation of the Soviet Union to restrict the “just settlement” mentioned in Resolution 242 solely to Palestinian Arab refugees (S/8236, discussed by the Security Council at its 1382nd meeting on November 22, 1967, notably at paragraph 117, in the words of Ambassador Kouznetsov of the Soviet Union), which signified the international community’s intention of having the resolution address the rights of all Middle East refugees.
It also records the statement by Justice Arthur Goldberg, the Chief Delegate of the United States to the United Nations at that time, who was instrumental in drafting the unanimously adopted United Nations Resolution 242, where he observed,
“The resolution addresses the objective of ‘achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem’. This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars.”
It should be noted that 242 does not expressly reference any right of return at all, let alone an absolute one. Indeed, 242 did not even mention so-called “Palestinians” or use the term “West Bank”. In point of fact, the language calls for a just settlement of the refugee problem. This could take many forms, including a financial settlement or resettlement in situ or elsewhere.
Resolution 242 did not succeed primarily because, while Israel accepted it, the Arab States and PLO rejected it. The leaders of thirteen Arab States gathered at a meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, from August 29 to September 1, 1967, and issued the infamous “3 Nos,” to wit: No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, and No recognition of Israel.
The PLO issued its own statement on November 23, 1967, which in detail rejected the right of Israel to exist and to have permanent, recognized, safe, and secure borders. It recognized that 242 didn’t require withdrawal from all territories and rejected it. Indeed, as noted above, it flat-out rejects Israel entirely, no matter the borders. In essence, it claims all of Israel, which it demands, must fundamentally have an Arab character and be the homeland for the so-called “Palestinian people”.
It also demands a mythical “right of return”. It correctly views 242 as permitting some other resolution, such as resettlement in Arab countries. It denies Israel freedom of navigation in international waterways like the Gulf of Aqaba. It also notes 242 does not reference the existence of a “Palestinian people” or provide them with a right to self-determination. However, there is no concomitant demand for statehood in the so-called “West Bank”. This is not a glaring omission. Rather, it is consistent with the PLO Charter, which is just against Israel’s existence. It views Arabs residing in the former Mandatory Palestine area merely as the vanguard of the pan-Arab movement and not as a separate and independent people.
It is important to recognize that the fundamental issue is Israel’s existence, which vitiates any attempts at a meaningful negotiation. Unless Israel’s existence is unconditionally accepted, there is no basis for constructive talks leading to a real and enduring peace agreement.
Don’t be misled by the PA, Hamas and their allied propaganda organs, which seek to obfuscate the problem. It’s just that simple; each side must accept and recognize the existence of the other. Israel has done so, as demonstrated by the Oslo Accords. However, the PA and Hamas have not actually reciprocated. Despite solemn undertakings to do so, the PA has never actually amended its founding document to remove the abhorrent provisions that are antithetical to genuine recognition of Israel’s right even to exist; and, for that matter, neither has Hamas. Moreover, in practice, they advocate the elimination of Israel and promote terrorism against Israel. Their inability, in word and deed, unqualifiedly to agree to Israel’s right to exist was and remains the single greatest impediment to peace between Israel and them.
France is only exacerbating the problem by rewarding Hamas terrorism and ignoring the antisemitism Hamasniks actively promote in its own midst. France should concentrate on solving its own problems and not engage in distractions, virtue signaling to Islamists in its ranks or promoting colonialist type machinations in the Middle East at the expense of Israel.
May G-d grant that Israel is victorious over Hamas and saves the hostages and may the blessings of genuine peace prevail.