HRES-1289-119
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sponsored by Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
What it does
This is a non-binding House resolution expressing the sense of the House that the United States should officially commemorate the 1948 Nakba, support the restoration of funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, support implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 on refugee return and compensation, and adopt policies against using U.S. weapons or diplomatic support for actions the resolution characterizes as displacing Palestinians. As a simple resolution, it does not carry the force of law, does not amend any statute, and does not appropriate or restrict funds on its own.
Who benefits
Advocates for Palestinian refugee rights and Palestinian-American communities who seek formal U.S. acknowledgment of the Nakba and support for refugee assistance programs; organizations like UNRWA that could see renewed political backing for restored U.S. funding; members of Congress and constituencies who support a shift in U.S.-Israel policy.
Who is hurt
The Israeli government and its supporters in the U.S., who would likely object to the resolution's characterization of events as genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing; U.S. officials and agencies whose current weapons transfer and diplomatic policies toward Israel are directly criticized; supporters of existing U.S.-Israel military cooperation who may see the resolution as pressuring changes to arms sales policy; Jewish American communities and organizations that dispute the resolution's historical framing.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the resolution accurately documents a well-established historical record—including U.S. government cables from 1948 acknowledging the refugee crisis and the U.S. vote for UN Resolution 194—and that formal recognition is a necessary step toward accountability and a just resolution for millions of Palestinian refugees. They contend that citing casualty figures, displacement data, and UNRWA's ongoing humanitarian role justifies renewed U.S. support for refugee services and a reassessment of arms transfers implicated in civilian harm.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the resolution's use of terms like "genocide," "apartheid," and "ethnic cleansing" prejudges highly contested legal and factual questions that are still being litigated internationally, including before the International Court of Justice, and that such language undermines the neutrality traditionally expected of U.S. diplomatic pronouncements. They contend the resolution's one-sided historical narrative omits context such as the Arab rejection of the 1947 partition plan and subsequent wars, and that conditioning U.S. weapons policy on this framing could weaken a longstanding security partnership with Israel.
Constitutional context
As a non-binding sense-of-the-House resolution, this measure does not itself alter law or bind the executive branch; any actual restriction on arms transfers or diplomatic recognition would require separate legislation or executive action, and the President retains the exclusive recognition power under Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) along with broad authority over foreign relations and arms sales.
Checks and balances
Congress can express policy views and use its appropriations and arms-export oversight powers (such as under the Arms Export Control Act) to constrain executive action, but this resolution itself creates no enforceable obligation and leaves foreign policy and recognition decisions with the executive branch.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed non-binding resolutions on Middle East policy and historical recognition matters (such as resolutions on the Armenian Genocide), though this specific framing of the Nakba as an ongoing process has not previously been adopted by the House.