Judge a book by its author's relatives, which shows it's a waste of time:

"The Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi elaborated in the 1950s that return was not an end in itself: “It is sometimes suggested that the way to solve the Palestine problem is to approach it in a piecemeal fashion … Settle the refugees and the biggest obstacle to the solution will be removed.

But the Palestine problem will remain as acute as ever with every Palestine refugee settled. The refugees may be the outward evidence of the crime which must be tidied out of sight but nothing will remove the scar of Palestine from Arab hearts … The solution to the Palestine problem cannot be

found in the settlement of the refugees.”

(The War of Return, Wilf/Schwarz)

Khalidi himself confirms the Arabs' denial of Jewish sovereignty "in any part of the land", "even if the size of a tablecloth":

"Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi in analyzing the Arab mood of the time, “was clearly premised on the liberation of Palestine, i.e., the dissolution of Israel.” (Rashid Khalidi, “Observations on the Right of Return,” Journal of Palestine Studies 21, no. 2 (Winter 1992): 36.)

And Hussein al-Khalidi wrote to the UN that Jews should be content to return to Muslim supremacist dhimmitude and renounce sovereignty:

"In 1944, for example, the Palestine Arab Party, which spoke for the center ground of Palestinian society, demanded the immediate “dissolution of the Jewish National Home,” and at the inaugural conference of the Arab League in October 1944, it was ruled that “Palestine constitutes an important part of the Arab world.” The Arab Higher Committee, which led the Palestinians before and during the 1948 war, informed the UN Special Committee on Palestine on its 1947 visit that “all of Palestine must be Arab.” Arab Higher Committee member Hussein al-Khalidi told the delegation that the Jews had always enjoyed comfortable lives in Arab countries until they began demanding their

own sovereign state. He rejected the possibility of territorial partition and called for a single state with an Arab majority."

Rashid Khalidi is as deceptive as Arafat's handshake on the White House lawn when he said the same day in an interview with Jordanian TV that he was smuggling terror into Israel through the door of Oslo:

"The Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi

made a similar point, implying that the change had been cosmetic rather than substantive. “What is required from the PLO now is not concessions,” he said, “but clarity in reaching out to the peace-oriented side of Israel.” Moreover, while the document was about Palestinian independence and demanded recognition of the Arabs’ right to self-determination, it still insisted on the “return” of the

Arab refugees into Israeli territory. This demand for a right of return appeared in multiple places in their Declaration of Independence, often appended to the phrase “inalienable right.” The borders of the Palestinian state were not defined, and were certainly not restricted to the West Bank

and Gaza Strip alone. Erekat’s claim that the Declaration of Independence entailed recognition of Israel in the 1967 borders is therefore incorrect.

The declaration stipulated that a political settlement in the Middle East should provide peace and security for “every State in the region” without explicitly mentioning Israel. While “the Zionist entity” appeared in a few places, this polity was described in exceptionally scathing language:

as a “colonialist, racist, Fascist State based on the seizure of Palestinian land [and] extermination of the Palestinian people.” The declaration further said that the Palestinian people were not alone in their stand against Israel’s “racist Fascist assault.” It referred to “the Israeli occupation and its racist Fascist practices” and to Israel’s “official military

Fascist terrorism.” It is hard to see how an ordinary

Palestinian, listening to this declaration, was supposed to discern a message of peace: if Israel were responsible for the annihilation of the Palestinian people, there could not have been any logic to reconciliation. The declaration’s invocation of international diplomatic resolutions as a basis for the demand for independence was also misleading. The allusion to UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (the partition plan) was truly astonishing. On the face of it, this should have meant acceptance of

partition and the Jewish people’s right to sovereignty; but in practice it meant the reverse. It stated that “despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people …following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 … that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.”

In other words, the mention of Resolution 181 was

intended only to establish the Palestinian Arab people’s right to independence without recognizing the parallel right of the Jewish people. Observers who wanted to understand the declaration as recognizing the rights of the Jews did so of their own accord. If anyone wanted to understand the

allusion to Resolution 181 as a hint at acceptance of the principle of partition and a shift toward historic compromise, along came the Palestinians and called the resolution a historic injustice, making it clear that this optimistic interpretation was mistaken. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 may have stated that the PLO wanted to achieve a political solution to the conflict and that such a solution ought to be

within the framework of “the Charter of the United Nations, the principles and provisions of international legitimacy, the rules of international law, [and] the resolutions of the United Nations,” but it also said that a solution should be achieved “in a manner that ensures the right of the Palestinian Arab people to return” (our emphasis). In other words, this was not a sign of the PLO accepting principles of international law, but rather cherry-picking those resolutions that could be interpreted as supporting the return of the refugees." (The War of Return, pages 186-87).

From the comments section of the FT's one-sided anti-Israel reviewer:

"Twenty-two Arab states were created by British and French colonialism, but Khalidi begrudge only the existence of the tiny Jewish state, the nation state of the 3,000-year-old Middle Eastern indigenous Jewish people. Khalidi inverts history - the last 100 years have been a period of Arab and Muslim rejectionism of the Jewish right to have their sovereign state in Palestine. They have periodically waged a war of annihilation on Israel under the guise of 'Palestinian aspirations to 'national rights'. They have brutally expelled the Jews of ancient MENA communities who now comprise over half the Jews of Israel."