Conclusion This report started by referring to a question asked by a Palestinian man who struggled for many years to be granted protection as a stateless person: “What can I do?” The report has sought to address this question in examining how Palestinians’ legal status is interpreted under international treaties and in international and domestic courts. Decisions on Palestinian refugee and statelessness claims should be driven by an acknowledgement of Palestinian statelessness and refugeehood and the need to ensure that Palestinians can access effective protection and have the opportunity to live their lives in dignity, wherever they are. The cases and policies discussed show variation in approaches to refugee and statelessness law as applied to Palestinians in recent years. There is an improving approach, to some extent, in some of the Article 1D jurisprudence, including an acknowledgement by the CJEU that Palestinians have a right to live in safe and dignified conditions. There are also acknowledgements by some national courts that the inclusion clause of Article 1D is triggered when UNRWA is unable to fulfil its mandate, and that Palestinians who have left UNRWA’s area of operation may not be able to return due to lack of residence permits or other barriers. This progress, however, is tempered by approaches that fail to adequately recognise the protective purpose of Article 1D, the pre-existing refugeehood of many Palestinians, and the harsh conditions in which many Palestinians have lived for many years. It also seems there is increased awareness of statelessness generally, and, more specifically, increased awareness that many Palestinians are stateless and in need of international protection on this basis. However, there are unfortunately policies and decisions that take a contrary approach and a step backwards in the journey towards protection for stateless Palestinians. Although entitled to Palestinian (or Israeli) nationality under international law, unless and until Palestine becomes an independent sovereign state with a nationality law, Palestinians should be considered stateless with respect to the 1954 Convention. Recognition as stateless persons permits those who are able to take up residence in countries that have a statelessness determination procedure to regularise their status and eventually to naturalise. This recognition of statelessness should not be perceived as negating the aspiration of many Palestinians to have a fully independent and sovereign State of Palestine. Nor should it be construed as a negation of Palestinian identity (in terms of national identity and rights under international law); nor a contradiction of stateless Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes of origin. It is, rather, an essential recognition of Palestinians’ current need for international protection as stateless persons or refugees in the context of ongoing occupation of Palestine and lack of full sovereignty. No one can say if or when a just and peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine may be achieved. Nonetheless, in the context of international protection, government decision-makers, lawyers, and judges in countries in which Palestinians seek protection have the power to make a real difference in the lives of Palestinian refugees and stateless persons. To do so, they must ensure that they are familiar with the relevant history of Palestine and the current conditions in UNRWA’s area of operation, the pre-existing refugeehood of most Palestinians, the statelessness of most Palestinians under the 1954 Convention, and the protective purpose of both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1954 Statelessness Convention, as well as other relevant law. Drawing on the evidence and analysis provided in this report, decision-makers have the opportunity to decide on asylum and statelessness applications based on the realities that UNRWA registration does not confer protection in terms of a protective legal status or nationality, nor does it confer a right to reside in any area (as set out in UNRWA’s letter of September 2021); that UNRWA may not have the ability to provide adequate assistance (as found in some of the cases cited herein); and that there are severe restrictions on movement within and between UNRWA’s fields of operation (as discussed above). Existing evidence enables decision-makers to take into account the fact that Palestinians living in UNRWA’s area of operation continue to suffer serious discrimination and abuse by governments, armed groups, or society. Decision-makers should consider carefully whether a Palestinian has the opportunity to live a life of dignity in UNRWA’s area of operation, and they should make decisions that give effect to Palestinians’ pre-existing refugee status, statelessness under the 1954 Convention, and need for international protection. 33