But co-sponsoring the Omar-Tlaib Right of Return resolution makes it impossible to keep both promises.
Chris Rabb wants voters to believe he supports two things simultaneously: a two-state solution and an absolute Palestinian Right of Return. That’s impossible. These two positions are mutually exclusive.
The two-state framework rests on a straightforward premise: two sovereign states for two distinct peoples. For Israel to function as a Jewish democratic state, it requires a stable Jewish majority. Remove that majority and you haven’t modified the two-state solution — you’ve ended it.
Israel’s population is around ten million. The U.N. estimates the Palestinian refugee population — descendants included — at nearly six million. A literal Right of Return, applied at scale, would not incrementally shift Israeli demographics. It would invert them, producing an Arab-majority state within Israel’s borders. At that point there is no two-state solution. There are two Arab-majority states.
In Rabb’s own words: In a post on X, Rabb declared that “the Nakba never ended,” announcing that he would co-sponsor a congressional resolution with Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib “to recognize the Nakba and reaffirm Palestinian refugees’ right to return.” That is not ambiguous language. It is a commitment to a literal return — the kind that forecloses the very outcome he claims to support.
–
The Actual History
The modern debate surrounding the Nakba — the displacement of Palestinians in 1948 — has largely degenerated into a one-sided fairy tale with the Zionists as the villains and the Palestinians (known at the time as “The Arabs”) as the victims. The prevailing narrative implies a pre-planned, unprovoked campaign of Zionist aggression. This is a good example of not letting facts get in the way of a good story.
The most rigorous documentation of Arab displacement in 1948 comes from Benny Morris, the Israeli “New Historian” whose archival work is routinely cited by critics of Israel. Morris established that widespread displacement occurred and that Israeli forces bore direct responsibility for some of it. He also established, unambiguously, that Arab armed attacks on Jewish neighborhoods, roads, and settlements began immediately after the U.N. Partition vote in November 1947 — before the State of Israel existed. Arab leadership had promised a “Holy War” if partition passed. They delivered on that promise, but didn’t figure on losing the war.
Both facts are true. Displacement occurred. It occurred in the context of a war the Arab side initiated rather than accept partition. A serious policy argument has to account for both.
The history of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, recognizing “The Right of Return,” adds another layer that Rabb’s framing ignores. When it passed in December 1948, every Arab state voted against it — because it implicitly recognized Israel’s right to exist. Within a year, Arab governments reversed course and began invoking the resolution as a permanent political instrument, having concluded its utility as leverage outweighed the symbolic cost of referencing a document that acknowledged Israel. The Right of Return has functioned as a diplomatic weapon since before most of its current advocates were born.
The “Negotiating Chip” Defense
Rabb’s supporters might argue that the Right of Return is a symbolic principle, a starting position in negotiations, never meant to be implemented literally. Some will say quietly that in any real agreement, only a token number of refugees would ever actually return.
This defense has two problems. First, it is not what Rabb said. He co-sponsored language affirming the right of return and declared the Nakba ongoing. If his actual position is that this right would be largely symbolic in practice, he should say so — plainly, on the record, to the same audiences he told the Nakba never ended.
Second, the selective application of this principle deserves scrutiny. The post-1948 period produced multiple mass displacement events that generated no comparable political movement: nearly a million Jews expelled or pressured to flee Arab countries and Iran; 12 to 14 million ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after World War II; more than 200,000 Greek Cypriots displaced after 1974. In each case, the international community’s answer was resettlement and integration, not a multigenerational right of return preserved in perpetuity. The consistent exception applied only to the Palestinians. Wonder why that could be?
What Rabb Owes Voters
There are two coherent positions a politician can hold here. One is genuine support for a two-state solution, which means accepting that a Jewish-majority Israel is a necessary outcome, and that the Right of Return, in any literal form, is incompatible with that outcome. The other is support for a single democratic state in which Jews are not guaranteed a majority — a legitimate if far-fetched position, but one that should be argued honestly rather than dressed in two-state language.
What Rabb is currently doing is neither. He is using two-state framing with audiences where that framing is reassuring, and Right of Return language with audiences where that framing will work. Population and borders are not details to be resolved in the fine print of a future agreement. They are the agreement.
Rabb should be asked, directly: Is the Right of Return you are co-sponsoring with Omar and Tlaib a literal commitment or a symbolic one? And if it is symbolic — if in practice only a token number of refugees would return — is he prepared to say that to the constituents whose support he sought by co-sponsoring it?
Those are not gotcha questions. They are the questions any serious candidate for federal office should be able to answer.
Leave a Reply