Is the right of return still desirable and sacred among Palestinian refugees?
| Author | Sobhi Albadawi |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148120933783 |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120933783
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2021, Vol. 23(1) 43 –59
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148120933783
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Is the right of return still
desirable and sacred among
Palestinian refugees?
Sobhi Albadawi
Abstract
The right of return has been a fundamental claim by Palestinian people since 1948. The ‘right’ refers
to the political position or principle that all generations of Palestinian refugees have the right to
return to the property they or their forebears left behind during the 1948 Palestinian exodus,
and following the 1967 Six-Day War. This study examines and updates Palestinian refugees’ views
of the right of return claim, adopting a quantitative research design surveying 1200 participants
from five refugee camps located in Hebron and Bethlehem in the West Bank. The study finds that
even after 72 years of displacement, the right of return remains an active but changing political
construct among surveyed Palestinians living in the West Bank. As such, future negotiations must
consider the generational narratives and ensure that the right of return claim, resettlement, and
compensation particularly are not treated as mutually exclusive in the delivery of a just solution
to the displacement of Palestinian refugees.
Keywords
compensation, refugees, resettlement, resolution, right, sacred
Introduction
The Palestinian–Israeli conflict originated in the second half of the 19th century with the
conception of modern Zionism – a political movement that aimed to create a Jewish state
in Palestine (Frangi, 1983: 31). In 1870, the Zionists organised large-scale European
Jewish immigration, land purchase, and the construction of an exclusively Jewish colony
in Palestine which was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire (Frangi, 1983: 29). Following
the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the League of Nations man-
dated authority over Palestine to the British. The Belfour Declaration of 1917 committed
Britain to establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. In 1920,
Palestine was placed under British rule, and this continued up to 1948. Zionist colonisa-
tion of Palestine accelerated rapidly during this period on the back of crucial assistance
provided by the British (Said, 1992: 17–18).
Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Corresponding author:
Sobhi Albadawi, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Email: Sobhi.albadawi@mq.edu.au
933783BPI0010.1177/1369148120933783The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsAlbadawi
research-article2020
Original Article
44 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 23(1)
The declaration of the state of Israel in 1948 saw thousands of the 1.37 million
Palestinians forcibly removed from their homeland (Al Nakba). This marked the genesis
of the Palestinian refugee problem that continues today (Masalha, 2001). Approximately
750,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homes to seek refuge in neighbouring
countries (e.g. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon), or in 1 of 28 refugee camps established in the
West Bank (20) and Gaza Strip (8) under the occupation of Israel (Masalha, 2001). There
are currently 593,990 Palestinian refugees in camps in the Gaza Strip and 258,156
Palestinian refugees in camps in the West Bank (Badil, 2018). Worldwide, there are more
than 7 million Palestinian refugees scattered in different locations, including many Arab
states, the European Union, and Israel (Badil, 2018).
Shortly after the declaration of the state of Israel, Resolution 194 was adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA R1948), stating:
. . . the (Palestinian) refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their
neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation
should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to
property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the
Governments or authorities responsible . . .
The right of return claim thus refers to the political position or principle that all genera-
tions of Palestinian refugees (approximately 7 million people) have the right to return to
the property they or their forebears left behind.
The right of return claim in the Palestinian narrative is linked to the right of self-
determination, a notion that is central to the struggle of Palestinians (Bracka, 2005). The
claim is also characterised as both a human right and a sacred right among Palestinian
refugees (Richter-Devroe, 2013). Of course, issues surrounding the rights of displaced
Indigenous populations are not restricted to Palestinians. Like Palestinians, Indigenous
groups to have been dispossessed of, or displaced from, their land due to colonisation
include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in and around Australia, as well as the
Sahrawi refugees who remain in long-term exile from their homeland of the Western
Sahara. In these cases (and others), the displaced population asserts both a sacred connec-
tion to their land and the right to return to their land.
This article explores the extent to which, if at all, the right of return claim remains
desirable and sacred among Palestinian refugees. The rationale for this investigation
emerged in part in response to two powerful yet opposing claims regarding this right. The
first claim comes from David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, who stated:
‘We [Israel] must do everything we can to see that they (Palestinian refugees) never do
return. The old will die and the young will forget’ (Nabulsi, 2006). The second claim
appears in Salman Abu Sitta’s (1999) text, Palestinian right of return: Sacred, legal and
possible. Ben-Gurion made his comment when referring to how Israel should respond to
Palestinian refugee displacement and is clearly implying that the Palestinian refugee
claim for their right of return will inevitably diminish over time. Abu Sitta, on the con-
trary, asserts the notion that there is a sacredness with which the Palestinian refugee holds
the right of return. As stated by Claus (1995: 163), sacredness ‘has a special type of status’
in social contexts through its inevitable association with ‘the other world’ and its ‘divine’
implications. Abu Sitta’s notion of sacredness in relation to the right of return is then con-
nected to the sociology of the sacred as posited by Durkheim (2008 [1912]).
To continue reading
Request your trial