– Ilan Pappe writes: On May 12, 1949, the conference was the only success when the parties signed the Lausanne Protocol on the framework of a comprehensive peace, which included territories, refugees and Jerusalem. Israel has accepted the principle of allowing the return of a number of Palestinian refugees. This Israeli agreement was reached under pressure from the United States and because the Israelis wanted to become members of the United Nations, which required the resolution of the refugee problem. After being admitted to the United Nations, Israel withdrew from the protocol it signed because it was fully satisfied with the status quo and did not see the need to make concessions on refugees or borders. Israeli Foreign Minister Mosche Sharett had hoped for a comprehensive peace settlement in Lausanne, but was not likened to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who considered the ceasefire agreements that ended the fighting with Arab states and promoted a lasting peace treaty to be sufficient.  Among the Arabs, only King Abdullah of Transjordan (now Jordan) defended a lasting peace treaty with Israel, not least because he had annexed the West Bank and the Israelis wanted to recognize it. When Abdullah`s secret negotiations and agreements with Israel were discovered, he was assassinated by a Palestinian in Jerusalem on July 20, 1951.  In the end, no agreement was reached. The lack of a solution to the refugee issue led to the creation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to meet the needs of refugees. While the main theme in Lausanne was the plight of refugees, some issues relating to refugee ownership were also discussed. The Israelis “explained the activities of the trustee of Absentee`s property.” The debate focused on whether ownership issues could be addressed separately from the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli counter-demands for war damage, the fate of the accounts of refugee banks stranded in Israel and the fate of refugees in the territory.  Israel insisted that the issue of refugees and property be discussed only as part of the resolution of the entire conflict, while the Arabs insisted that refugee issues be dealt with separately, at their repatriation. The Initiative on Adequate Judicial Responsibility for Individuals will inevitably take time to be properly implemented, so that pro-socialization initiatives will have to begin even before a return program is put in place on its basis – certainly for younger children.
Thus, the creation of rehabilitation centres for young people can serve as an immediate and relatively simple solution, and establish and develop existing youth institutions that already exist in the region for these purposes. According to Yagil Levy, the parties agreed on a protocol based on the adoption by the Arabs of the principle of partition in Palestine, which implies the recognition of Israel and Israel`s recognition of the principle of repatriation of Palestinian refugees. Nevertheless, inspired by its redefined security interests, Israel signed the document, but succeeded in translating it into a political agreement (Levy, 1997, p. 60). The Israelis insisted that solutions to refugee problems should only be discussed as part of a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This was consistent with the Commission`s position that the interaction of all aspects of the problem was too obvious to be overlooked. The Israeli government has briefly proposed the repatriation of 100,000 refugees, but only as part of a final settlement in which all other refugees have been accepted by Arab states. Compensation would be paid, but not to isolated refugees or Arab states, to a single “common fund” and only to land built before abandonment; not for personal property or undedified land.