Backing up the argument:
There is no reference to the “right of return” in international law, relevant UN resolutions or in agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors. United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 refer not to a "right of return," but to the need to resolve the “refugee issue”.
The international resolutions referred to by the Palestinians (UN Resolution 194 and Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) are non-binding, and inconsistent with current conditions and realities. If Resolution 194 is so sacred and important why isn't the Palestinian Authority demanding that all of Jerusalem plus Bethlehem and Al-Aqsa mosque be put under UN rule, as recommended by the 1947 General Assembly resolution on the partition of British Palestine?
International law stipulates that the return of a refugee should be to the country of which the refugee was a citizen. The right of return presupposes the existence of a country to which the person can return. The Palestinians who fled in 1947-1948 had of course not been citizens of the State of Israel, which was only created in 1948, and therefore have no legal right to return to Israel.
According to the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, Israel is legally entitled to reject the “return” of Palestinian refugees. Article 4 of the Declaration stipulates that the return of refugees can be suspended “in a time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.” Article 29 further stipulates that a country can refuse refugees if they are likely to “violate the freedoms of others” and to damage “public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” It is clear that bringing to Israel millions of Arabs, who have made clear their hostility towards Israel, falls under such definitions.
The Palestinian refugee problem was the result of a war forced on Israel by invading Arab armies. Since Israel is neither at fault for the creation of the refugee problem nor for its perpetuation, it should not be asked to take upon itself responsibility for this problem.
Even so, Israel has said that on humanitarian grounds it will participate in an international effort to resolve the situation through resettlement and compensation.
The exceptional definition of refugees in the Palestinian case has inflated the number of Palestinian refugees and allowed it to expand over the years from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. Currently, the population of Israel is just over 6.7 million, of which 19% are Arab Israelis, according to the Israeli census. A mass immigration of millions of Palestinians into Israel would obliterate Israel's basic identity as the homeland of the Jewish people and a refuge for persecuted Jews, thus denying the Jews’ right to independence and self-determination.
The Palestinian claim of unlimited immigration to Israel is a political ploy made by those who do not want Israel to exist. It is disingenuous that the Palestinians are simultaneously appealing for a state of their own while calling for the right to freely immigrate to another state, Israel. By continuing to demand a "right" that would, in effect, negate the basic identity of Israel, the Palestinian leadership is undermining prospects for peace. If 5 million Palestinian refugees would return to Israel, adding to the 1.5 million Arabs already citizens of the State of Israel, this would mean the end of the Jewish state.
Besides being historically, morally and legally groundless, the so-called Palestinian “right of return” is just another PLO euphemism for the destruction of Israel. It is also inconsistent with the two-state solution envisaged by the Road Map, since it would in effect generate two Arab states and not two states for two nations.
The Palestinian refugee camps have been under the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority (PA), but to this day, it has not used one dime of the billions of dollars in foreign aid it has received to build permanent housing for the refugees.
For the sake of argument, one can claim that the descendants of Jews who were forced out of Hebron in 1929-1930 by religiously inspired massacres should have the same right of return or compensation that the Arab refugees are claiming.
In keeping with this example, the return of a few thousand Jews to Hebron would not affect the demographics of the Arab-controlled area, whereas the return to Israel of the millions of Palestinians who claim refugee status would quickly turn Israel into another Palestinian state.
( See background )