The UN General Assembly’s latest vote for a so-called “two-state solution” marks not progress toward peace, but a profound abdication of reality. With 142 nations in favour, the resolution may appear to endorse coexistence between Jews and Arabs. In truth, by reaffirming the so-called “right of return,” it enshrines a vision of two Arab states and no Jewish one.
Even dressed up with lofty language — references to a “Hamas-free Palestinian state” or symbolic condemnations of the October 7 massacre — the resolution preserves the very idea in whose name that massacre was committed: return. Article 39 explicitly “reiterates” the “right of return,” despite the fact that no such right exists in international law and UN Resolution 194 does not establish one. By doing so, the Assembly effectively cancels out all its preceding clauses. The poison pill is in the text, and it is the same poison that has prevented peace for a century.
The “Return” Ethos: An Obsession with Erasure
As Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf have meticulously documented in The War of Return (and its post-October 7 update, October Return), the “right of return” is not a symbolic flourish. It is the cornerstone of modern Palestinian identity, an ethos that unites factions from Hamas to Fatah to the Palestinian Authority. It reflects a single, uncompromising commitment: the negation of Zionism.
Palestinian leaders will gladly say “two states” to Western diplomats. But press them on the “right of return” and the answer is always the same: it is sacred, non-negotiable, and belongs personally to every Palestinian across generations. The implication is obvious: with millions claiming this “right,” the vision is not one Jewish and one Arab state, but two Arab states — an Arab Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank, and another Arab-majority Palestine replacing Israel.
This is no hypothetical. Every attempt to test whether “return” could be compromised — in negotiations at Camp David and Taba, in unilateral withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon — has revealed the same pattern. The Palestinian side refuses to moderate its stance. For them, “return” is not a bargaining chip but the ultimate prize.
Western Naïveté and “Westplaining”
Too many in the West persist in projecting their own desires onto the conflict, interpreting “return” as a symbolic demand that could be resolved through compensation or a token number of refugees resettled. This is wishful thinking. It is not how Palestinians understand their own cause. The consistent rejection of compromise proves otherwise.
The British Foreign Secretary captured the essence of the conflict in 1947: it is not between two peoples competing for a single land, but between Jews who want a state and Arabs who want Jews not to have one. Until this asymmetry is acknowledged, resolutions like the one just passed are not steps toward peace but reinforcements of the problem.
A Hamas-Free Palestine? Fantasy Meets Reality
The UN resolution calls for a “Hamas-free Palestinian state.” But every poll shows Hamas as the most popular political party among Palestinians. How can one demand a state free of Hamas while endorsing the ideology that fuels Hamas — return and rejection? The contradiction is glaring, yet the international community looks away.
The True Test for Peace
If the world genuinely seeks peace, it must abandon the illusion that a Palestinian state defined by “return” can coexist with Israel. The only reliable test is this: do Palestinians accept the Jewish state’s right to exist alongside them? That means rejecting the so-called “right of return.” Until that day, the Palestinian national project remains not about building their own state but about dismantling the Jewish one.
Conclusion
The UN’s vote was hailed by some as a step toward justice. In truth, it was a step toward enshrining injustice: the normalisation of political violence, the delegitimisation of the Jewish homeland, and the perpetuation of endless conflict.
Peace will come not through empty resolutions but through the day Palestinians embrace a vision of life with Israel, not instead of it. Until then, what the world calls a “two-state solution” is nothing more than a recipe for two Arab states — and the erasure of the one Jewish state.
