Peloni: The deference and legitimacy granted to the Saudi-French proposal in the Trump Gaza UN resolution is perhaps the greatest betrayal of Israel’s sovereignty as a Jewish state over the past century, as it legitimizes the Right of Return.
The Trump administration, which initially was vehemently opposed to the Saudi-French proposal for the promotion of the two-state solution (the “New York Declaration” of July 29, 2025), has now endorsed this initiative, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2025,[1] and accepts it as a source of authority in its diplomatic proposals.
The first mention of the Saudi-French proposal as a source of authority in an American diplomatic document appeared in Point 9 of President Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan of September 29, 2025.[2] Article 9 mentions the Saudi-French proposal alongside Trump’s 2020 peace plan as the basis for demanding reforms by the Palestinian Authority (PA). The plan also states, in Article 19, that “while Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” – a goal identical to the Saudi-French proposal for the promotion of the two-state solution.
Another mention of the Saudi-French proposal appears in the updated version of the proposed resolution for ending the conflict in Gaza, submitted by the U.S. to the UN Security Council and adopted on November 17, 2025 as Resolution 2803.[3]
As noted, up to this point, the U.S. had been very opposed to the Saudi-French initiative, seeing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state as a driver of Hamas terror activity, not as an actual step towards peace. It appears that the aspiration to form an Arab-Islamic-Western coalition to advance a plan for resolving the Gaza crisis motivated the Trump administration to change its policy and to add a mention of the Saudi-French proposal as a source of authority in its diplomatic documents. The recent coordination among France, the PA, and Arab countries in all things connected with the Palestinian arena and Gaza ultimately led to the inclusion of the Saudi-French proposal in the framework of the Trump plan.
The mention of the Saudi-French proposal in Trump’s 20-point plan, and particularly in the Security Council resolution proposed by the U.S., upgrades the status of the proposal, making it a legitimate and agreed-upon part of an official American diplomatic document, and creates a link between American diplomatic moves concerning Gaza and the advancement of a proposal to recognize a Palestinian state. This is further underlined against the backdrop of the announcement by the U.S. delegation to the UN that the UN Security Council Resolution on Gaza would be a “pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”[4]
However, a look at the Saudi-French proposal reveals that it effectively thwarts from the outset the “two states for two peoples” solution west of the Jordan river by “reiterating” the “right of return” of the 1948 Palestinian refugees and their descendants to the territory of the State of Israel. Such a move effectively leads to the revocation of the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
The Saudi-French proposal addresses the issue of the Palestinian refugees in three different ways, in three different articles. In Article 39, it explicitly mentions the phrase “right of return”; Article 14 refers to UNGA Resolution 194, which according to the Palestinians constitutes a legal basis for their demand for a right to return to their homes inside Israel;[5] and Article 7 refers to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which itself calls for a solution to the problem of the refugees based on UNGA Resolution 194.
The following is a review of the treatment of the Palestinian refugee issue in the Saudi-French proposal that was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2025:
Explicit Mention Of The “Right Of Return” In Article 39 Of The Saudi-French Proposal
In its Article 39, the Saudi-French proposal, adopted in the UNGA on September 12, 2025, explicitly “reiterate[s] the right of return,” thus adopting the official Palestinian narrative that UNGA Resolution 194, of December 11, 1948 sets out the right of 1948 Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes in the territory of the State of Israel.[6] The implementation of this right will necessarily eliminate the State of Israel, in contradiction of the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and thus also nullify the two-state solution set out in the UNGA Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 that called for the establishment of independent Arab and Jewish states.
The implementation of the refugees’ right of return to their homes in Israel is a central demand for the Palestinians, who see it as a matter of principle on which there can be no compromise in any discussion of a permanent arrangement with Israel. To date, the Palestinian leadership, including all its factions, has persisted in calling for the implementation of this right, and consistently rejecting any peace arrangement based on “two states for two peoples,” a Palestinian state and a Jewish state, but settling for the ambiguous term “two-state solution.” This is similar to the wording in the Saudi-French proposal, which mentions neither the Jews’ connection to their land nor Israel as a Jewish state.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas regularly reiterates his call to implement this right of return, stressing that “the right of return means return to Israel, not to a Palestinian state.” He argues that the right of return is “the individual right of every refugee, concerning which no one can arrive at an agreement without his consent.”[7] Furthermore, when giving an important speech, Abbas takes care to wear a key-shaped pin, the symbol of return. Additionally, the PLO Central Council, which Abbas heads, called at an April 2025 conference to implement the Palestinian refugees’ right of return to their homes in Israel.[8]
In light of the official Palestinian position on this matter, the explicit inclusion of the term “right of return” in an official international document – that is, the Saudi-French proposal (aka the New York Declaration), that was adopted by the UNGA in September and is referred to in President Trump’s 20-point plan that was adopted as Security Council Resolution 2803, initiated by the U.S. – is a move with far-reaching significance, even if it right now appears merely symbolic and nonbinding.
It should be noted that UNGA Resolution 194, which the Palestinians consider to be the legal basis for their demand for a right of return (see below), mentions no such “right” for Palestinian refugees. Thus, the mention of the term “right of return” in Article 39 of the Saudi-French proposal is a victory in the ongoing diplomatic struggle waged by the PA in recent years for recognition of a Palestinian state while at the same time undermining Israel’s right to exist. Now, the Palestinians will be able to base any future demands on the Saudi-French proposal, which serves as normative confirmation of the existence of a Palestinian “right” to return to within Israel.
Enshrining The Issue Of The 1948 Refugees From UNGA Resolution 194 Of 1948 In Article 14 Of The Saudi-French Proposal
Another mention of the issue of the refugees in the Saudi-French proposal is in Article 14, which calls for “a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.”[9]
There is an Israeli-Palestinian dispute over the legal meaning of UNGA Resolution 194, adopted in December 1948, and the actual number of the refugees at the end of the 1948 war, as well as the status of their descendants, who have settled in other countries and in some cases have even become naturalized citizens. Israel rejects interpreting the resolution as requiring the return of refugees into its territory and rejects the interpretation adopted by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which extends the right of return to all subsequent generations of Palestinians. The Palestinians, on the other hand, consider this resolution to be the foundation of their demand for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in the 1948 territories – a demand that completely contradicts the principle of “two states for two peoples.”
The PA leadership has repeatedly declared that the implementation of Resolution 194 means the return of the refugees to their homes within Israel. For example, in late April 2025, the PLO Central Council, which is headed by Abbas, stated: “Based on UNGA Resolution 194, the Central Council stresses its adherence to the Palestinian right to return to their homes and their property from which they were forcibly expelled in 1948.”[10] The Fatah movement’s Information, Culture, and Indoctrination Commission, which Abbas also heads, announced also that ” he refugee issue will remain the crux of the Palestinian cause, and there will be no peace and stability in the region without the return of the refugees to the homes from which they were expelled. We will not permit this right to be violated.”[11]
It should be noted that the reference in Article 14 to a just and agreed-upon solution to the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with Resolution 194 is very similar to the wording in the clause on the refugees in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. This clause was added to the initiative at the last minute before its adoption at the Arab League’s Beirut summit in March 2002 following pressure by some Arab countries for the addition of a clause requiring the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes (see details below).
Legitimization For UNRWA Activity In Article 14 Of The Saudi-French Proposal
Furthermore, Article 14 of the Saudi-French proposal grants legitimacy for the unlimited extension of the current role of UNRWA until after “a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194” is found. This is despite the involvement of UNRWA employees in Hamas terror activity and despite the organization’s years-long indoctrination of children to hate Israel in the schools that it operates.[12]
It should be noted that the Palestinians do not consider UNRWA a mere welfare agency for the Palestinian refugees, but a body aimed at ensuring the return of the refugees to their homes in Israel and in fact characterize it as “the main political symbol of the right of return.”[13] For example, then-Palestinian Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh explained that “throughout its years of activity, UNRWA has been a source of hope for the Palestinian refugees for aid and for return to their homes, in the framework of the UN resolutions, particularly Resolution 194.”[14]
Article 7 Of the Saudi-French Proposal: Framing A Peace Settlement In The Spirit Of The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, Which Likewise References Resolution 194
Another reference to the issue of the right of return in the Saudi-French proposal is the adoption of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative in Article 7 as an overarching framework for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement, alongside relevant UN resolutions and the principles of the Madrid Conference.[15]
The Arab Peace Initiative, which was approved at the Beirut summit in March 2002, does not explicitly mention the term “right of return,” but it does make a peace arrangement conditional upon a “just” and “agreed upon” resolution of the refugee problem in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194. As noted, the Palestinians see Resolution 194 as the basis for their demand for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israeli territory.
It should be noted that the first permutation of the Arab Peace Initiative – the Saudi peace initiative drawn up by Saudi King Abdullah – did not mention the issue of Palestinian refugees at all. Its main point was a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in exchange for full normalization with all Arab countries. The issue of refugees was added to it at the last minute, under pressure from Syria and Lebanon, which to this day refuse to grant citizenship to the Palestinian refugees within them and wanted to be sure they would leave and return to Israel. Thus, the inclusion of the issue of the right of return in the Arab Initiative caused it to be fatally warped, in effect making it unimplementable.[16]
Although this last-minute addition states that the solution, to be based on Resolution 194, would be agreed upon – a definition aimed at softening Israel’s position on the Arab peace initiative – the mere reference to Resolution 194 was perceived by the Palestinians to include the right of return in principle, and at the same time was perceived by Israel as forcing upon it a demand for the return of refugees on a scale that would destroy its Jewish identity.
Thus, the Saudi-French proposal, in its mention of the Arab Peace Initiative in Article 7, and in its mention of Resolution 194 along with a call for an agreed-upon resolution in Article 14, maintains the ambiguity of the issue of the resolution of the refugee problem – thus effectively preventing the implementation of the two-state solution.
Conclusion And Implications
The Saudi-French proposal (aka the New York Declaration) adopted by President Trump in his 20-point plan and in UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which endorses Trump’s plan, explicitly mentions the right of return (in Article 39) and enshrines it in other articles in various ways – in Article 14 (by mentioning Resolution 194 and the unlimited perpetuation of UNRWA) and in Article 7 (by mentioning the Arab Peace Initiative). In this way, the proposal reinforces the legitimacy of the right of return in the international discourse, while in fact thwarting any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The transformation of the Saudi-French proposal for a two-state solution into a source of authority in the framework of the Trump plan to resolve the Gaza crisis effectively boosts the international standing of the initiative and its framers, and establishes a link between the U.S.’s diplomatic moves and the promotion of the proposal’s provisions.
For the Palestinians and the Arab world, the mention of the Saudi-French proposal in Trump’s plan is an important diplomatic achievement that puts the “right of return” back on the diplomatic table and grants it international legitimacy. For Israel, the mentions of the right of return are deeply troubling, because could signify international consent to the Palestinian demand for a mass influx of Arab refugees and unlimited generations of their descendants that will eliminate the Jewish identity of the state – which is its raison d’etre.
* Y. Yehoshua is MEMRI Vice President for Research.
[1] News.un.org/en/story/2025/09/1165835, September 12, 2025.
[2] For this plan, see Thehill.com/homenews/administration/5527504-read-gaza-strip-ceasefire-trump-israel, September 29, 2025.
[3] See Clause 2 of Resolution 2803, as well as the 20-point plan, which was included as an appendix to this resolution. (Press.un.org/fr/meetings-coverage). It should be noted that the initial version of the proposed resolution submitted by the U.S. to the Security Council reportedly made no mention of the Saudi-French proposal (Al-Sharq, Saudi Arabia, November 7, 11, 13, 18, 2025).
[4] See the delegation’s statement: Usun.usmission.gov/joint-statement-on-the-un-security-council-resolution-on-gaza, November 14, 2025.
[5] Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 discusses the problem of the Palestinian refugees in the context of the outcomes of the war, stating in Article 11 that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours 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.” (Securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/IP%20ARES%20194.pdf.)
[6] Article 39 states: “In this regard we decided to explore, in the context of the realization of a sovereign Palestinian State, a regional security architecture that could provide security guarantees for all, building on the experience of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), paving the way for a more stable and secure Middle East, as well as a regional and international framework offering appropriate support to resolving the refugee question, while reiterating the right of return.” Un.org/unispal/document/un-high-level-international-conference-new-york-declaration-29jul2025/; Documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n25/239/44/pdf/n2523944.pdf.
[7] On Abbas’s positions on the right of return, see MEMRI Special Report No. 15, Abu Mazen: A Political Profile, April 29, 2003. For statements by Abbas on this issue from the present year, see his speech to the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (wafa.ps, May 15, 2025), his speech at the African Union summit in Addis Abeba (wafa.ps, February 15, 2025), and his September 2025 speech to university students (wafa.ps, September 18, 2025).
[8] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 11969, PLO Central Council Statement Calls For Realizing Palestinian Refugees’ Right To Return ‘To The Homes From Which They Were Expelled In 1948’, May 8, 2025.
[9] Article 14 states: “We urged member States, the United Nations, its agencies, international organizations to provide resources and assistance at scale to support recovery and reconstruction, including through a dedicated reconstruction international Trust Fund to that aim. We underlined the indispensable role of UNRWA, and expressed our commitment to continue supporting, including through the appropriate funding, the agency in the implementation of its mandate and welcomed its commitment and ongoing efforts to implement the recommendations of the Colonna report. Upon the achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, UNRWA will hand over its public-like services in the Palestinian territory to empowered and prepared Palestinian institutions.” Un.org/unispal/document/un-high-level-international-conference-new-york-declaration-29jul2025/; Documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n25/239/44/pdf/n2523944.pdf.
[10] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 11969, PLO Central Council Statement Calls For Realizing Palestinian Refugees’ Right To Return ‘To The Homes From Which They Were Expelled In 1948’, May 8, 2025.
[11] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 11109, Palestinian Authority, Hamas Condemn Suspension Of Funds To UNRWA Over Involvement Of Its Staffers In October 7 Attack: UNRWA Is Vital To Implementing Right Of Return, January 31, 2024.
[12] See the EU Parliament on the curricula of UNRWA schools: Europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0228_EN.pdf.
[13] See statements by PLO Executive Committee member Ahmad Majdalani: MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 9618 – Palestinian Authority Minister And PLO Executive Committee Member Majdalani: UNRWA Is The Political Symbol Of The Right Of Return – November 1, 2021; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 11969 – PLO Central Council Statement Calls For Realizing Palestinian Refugees’ Right To Return ‘To The Homes From Which They Were Expelled In 1948’ – May 8, 2025.
[14] Wafa.ps, January 28, 2024.
[15] Article 7 states: “We agreed to support that aim and within a timebound process the conclusion and implementation of a just and comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, and the Arab Peace Initiative, ending the occupation, resolving all outstanding and final status issues and ending all claims, achieving just, and lasting peace, and ensuring security for all and enabling full regional integration and mutual recognition in the Middle East, in full respect for the sovereignty of all States.” Un.org/unispal/document/un-high-level-international-conference-new-york-declaration-29jul2025/; Documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/n25/239/44/pdf/n2523944.pdf..
[16] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 364, President of Tel-Aviv University: ‘The Warped Saudi Initiative,’
April 9, 2002.
Message received from Roamnrab:
I agree with others responding to this that Israel needs to be clear that this is totally unacceptable. The motive for this appears to be both to get rid of Palestinians from countries like Lebanon and also to destroy the State of Israel under the guise of some kind of human rights for the people who fled their homes and were told they would be able to go back home again after the Arabs destroyed all the Jews.
And also this is predicated on the reform of the PA, which must happen first. That reform is never going to happen.
“while Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” – a goal identical to the Saudi-French proposal for the promotion of the two-state solution.”
Israel must make it completely clear that this is unacceptable, no matter what the conditions are because it will mean the end of Israel. No country which has been attacked, should have to agree to any kind of peace agreement that would mean their country would be destroyed.
At this point I am afraid that Trump is not the President any of us thought he would be. In his first administration he assassinated Soleimani. In this administration, he treats various jihadists who are no different from Soleimani, as if they are reasonable negotiating partners.
He assassinated Soleimani, he didn’t negotiate with him. But he treats psychopathic mass murderers in Hamas and Qatar as if they are decent negotiating partners. Why? What happened to make Trump different?
Is this the result of 2 attempted assassinations and then the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Has Trump decided living is more important to him than being honest about who is a mass murderer and who is not?
It’s difficult to blame a human being for wanting to live. Trump isn’t a criminal or evil. Is it possible he just ran out of unconscious permission to remain courageous?
I watched his news conference with Mamdani. He acted as if he and Mamdani were best buddies. Mamdani is a man who hates Jews. He totally hates Jews. He wants to arrest Netanyahu. I am trying not to exaggerate the degree to which Mamdani is the total opposite of a conservative, yet Trump acted as if his job is to pretend there is no daylight between them.
Where is the President Trump we knew in his first term?
Sure we could all just call him names, but it doesn’t illuminate what is going on. I’d rather understand what is going on.
Trump is a backstabbing pile of shit.
I thought nothing could be worse than creating a PA state in the Jewish biblical heartland until I see adding to it the “PAright of return ”
steal the land and flood with “millions!!!!!!!” of enemy e”refugees” – of course initialy just a “small limited number” which for years can be worked on to increase and increase ad increase – and of course they will need their “fair share of resources and – yes – land….” Jews! Wake up! Open our eyes as the Executioner raises his sword! – or to quote the title of the documentary about Rabbi Weissmandl: “AMONG BLIIND FOOLS!”
Perhaps I missed it, but there appears to be no mention of the approximately 1 million Jews who were forced to flee their ME countries (where many had lived for many centuries) and become Israeils.
The “bottom line” in all of this, is that the great debates going on about all this in countries near and far from the ME should not be happening. In my humble opinion, what happens in Israel and its neighbouring countries is NONE of their business; none whatsoever.
As most of us have been saying on this and other sites, the Jews of Israel should do EXACTLY what they need to do to live a “normal” life. As should the French, the Saudis and the Americans, all of whom have their own serious problems.