(Nahida Gordon is Professor of Statistics in the School of Nursing at Case Western Reserve University.  Born in Jerusalem, she is active in seeking peace and justice for the people of the Holy Land.  She serves on the Steering Committee of the Presbyterian's Israel Palestine Mission Network, the Executive Committee of the National Middle East Presbyterian Caucus and is a member of PIN's Palestinian Advisory Group)

For Palestinians there is something wonderful about the idea that this coming September a Palestinian state might be recognized internationally. For them it would be a dream come true.  However, when one examines the realities behind this dream, the wonderment disappears.

Palestinians were expelled from 78% of Palestine, their lands and properties stolen, and their communities torn apart.  Amazingly, lands and properties continue to be stolen to the present time from Palestinians living in the West Bank (and East Jerusalem), albeit at a slower pace.  Further, it is not clear that this process would stop once a Palestinian state is recognized by the international community given the large expanding Jewish settler population inhabiting the new state.   The declaration of the Palestinian state in September would appear to be a renouncement of the right of return of Palestinians displaced from their homes in 1947-48, 1967, and continuing to this day to their homes, land and communities.

Mr. Abbas claims in an Op Ed piece published in the New York Times:

The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948. [i]

Mr. Abbas proposes to “negotiate” the issue of the “solution of Palestinian refugees”.  This brings to mind two problems.  The first is that Mr. Abbas is not the elected representative of the Palestinians, all of whom live either in the occupied territories, in Israel, in refugee camps in the Middle East, or in the diaspora in most of the continents of the world.  The second issue is the right of these Palestinians to return to their homes and communities.  It is clear that many Palestinians of all ages wish to return as evidenced by what was witnessed very recently on the borders of Lebanon and Syria, and the boundaries of East Jerusalem as Palestinians sought to return to their homes, land and communities from which they were expelled.

To reiterate, the right of refugees to return is not up for negotiations.  On the contrary, the right of return of refugees to their countries of origin is a customary right and has origins from several sources.  First, in Leviticus, Chapter 25, the ‘Year of Jubilee’ is defined as occurring every fifty years.  Leviticus, Chapter 25, verse 13, a commandment from God, reads: “In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to his own property”.[ii] Thus, in accordance with God’s commandment, after sixty three years, the Palestinian refugees certainly have the right to return.

Second, On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly (GA) of the United Nations (UN) adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Articles 9, 13, and 15 address the individual’s right of return:

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 13: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 15: (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.[iii]

Third, on December 11, 1948, the UN GA passed Resolution 194(III) concerning the progress report of the United Nations Mediator for Palestine.  Article 11 of Resolution 194(III) specifically addresses the issue of the right of return of refugees:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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 and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;[iv]

Fourth, on December 16, 1966, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[v].  Article 12 section 4 states that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country”.

So Mr. Abbas should not be “negotiating” about the right of return but should be demanding the right of return even though Israel holds all the guns and has the almost unconditional support of the United States Congress, State Department and President.  In view of the continuing occupation and the seizing of land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there are dangers in declaring the West Bank and Gaza as the State of Palestine and obtaining international recognition of this new state.  Will this declaration be viewed as a capitulation of the right of return of Palestinians to all and any parts of Palestine including what is now the state of Israel?

Another danger is that in reality the new state of Palestine may be a collection of small disconnected enclaves under Israeli control.  Would this new Palestine state end the occupation by the Israeli military and would it have control of its borders and have a military to defend itself from unwanted incursions by Israel?  Or, is it a mirage of a state which would lack the essential characteristics of a modern state free of domination by Israel and the West?

In short, the Palestinian team at the United Nations must ensure that recognition of a Palestinian state does not negate the rights of Palestinians everywhere.  Specifically recognition of a Palestine as a state must also explicitly restate the rights of Palestinians everywhere.

The real issues are the occupation, the right of return, and the violation of basic human and civil rights for Palestinians in all of Palestine.

[ii] Leviticus 25:13, New International Version.

[iii] United Nations Declaration of Human Rights can be accessed on the internet at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

[iv] UN GA Resolution 194(III) can be accessed on the internet at http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A

[v] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights issued by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights can be accessed on the internet at: Accessed at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.