Right of return in Israel Palestine

The argument

Under a two-state solution, a Palestinian state would be established. This would allow the millions of Palestinian refugees living in places like Jordan and the US to return to their homeland. On this argument the decisive feature of the arrangement is not the border itself but the existence of a state with the authority to admit them, since a right of return requires somewhere with the standing to exercise it. Proponents argue this would be impossible under a one-state solution. The reason Israel desires control of the area, on this account, is to have a specifically Jewish state, and if they were to share this area with Palestinians it would undermine the Zionist philosophy. A single state admitting millions of returning refugees would alter its composition, so on this reading the demographic question and the political question are the same question. This is why, proponents contend, Palestinians have been pushed out of their land historically by the Israeli government; so the Israel-occupied area will be solely Jewish. Read this way the displacement was a condition of the project rather than incidental to it, which is also why they argue that under a one-state solution the Israeli government would not allow Palestinians to return to their homeland: the objection to their return would be the same objection that produced their departure. Against that stands the claim that the refugees across the globe deserve the basic human right of return to their homeland, an entitlement held to belong to the individuals concerned rather than to rest on the discretion of a state. A two-state solution presents an equal solution while granting Palestinians the right to return to their homeland, satisfying both that entitlement and the demographic requirement that blocks it elsewhere.

Context

Palestinian refugees are scattered throughout the Middle East and the world, and have been forced out of their homeland for decades. These refugees should be permitted to return to their country of origin. The establishment of a Palestinian state under a two-state solution would allow these refugees to return.

Premises

Counter-arguments

If the agreement was brokered by outside nations, a one-state solution under which Israel was forced to accept Palestinian refugees back could work and not violate the Palestinian right of return. The assumed problem this argument has with a one state solution is that Israel would not allow Palestinian refugees back to their homeland. However, this problem could be easily avoided. If an outside force such as the UN, US, or other nations were to ensure that the treaty was upheld, rights could be given to Palestinian refugees during the establishment of a single state. Israel could not break this rule without facing international backlash. A two state solution has been tried in the past and has failed; a one state solution could be done in a way that ensures Israel does not violate Palestinian right of return.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A creative solution could allow for Palestinians to return under a single state.

Framing

Believers of this argument think that it is a basic human right to be able to reside in one's homeland and that refugees morally deserve the right of return to Palestine.