Palestinian refugees rendered spectators with regard to the right of return

The right of return for Palestinian refugees remains conditioned by symbolism, external dictates and signs of agreement from the Palestinian Authority. As Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas recently declared an alleged flexibility in order to aid Israel maintain its settler-colonial structure, Israel Radio reported that the US allegedly offered its help in compiling a list of Palestinian refugees eligible for return which would later be approved by Israel – a statement vehemently denied by Israeli officials.

According to the Times of Israel, an unidentified Palestinian source expressed the opinion that “very few Palestinians would choose to live in Israel even if that was an option, because they would have to sing the national anthem, Hatikvah, send their children to schools run by the Israeli educational system and perhaps in the future have to perform some form of national or army service.”

Such a statement indicates the degeneration of Palestinian rights and the marginalisation of Palestinian refugees due to a combined effort on behalf of Israel, its allies and the PA to avoid a discussion regarding the dismantling of the settler-colonial state.

The Palestinian right of return is constantly portrayed as a Zionist concern, rather than an enshrined right to be discussed. Since the Nakba, Israel embarked upon concealing destruction in order to ensure Palestinian refugees’ claims to land would be countered by the discrepancy of the altered landscape.

In Moshe Dayan’s words, “We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. Instead of Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You do not even know the names of these villages and I don’t blame you, because these geography books no longer exist.”

Subsequently, the only discussion Israeli leaders would indulge in was a symbolic and illusory right of return based upon allegedly humanitarian concerns, inserting new and unsubstantiated terminology within public discourse which failed to challenge decades of colonial expansion.

The right of return is perpetually discussed within the settler-colonial framework, ensuring the impossibility of its implementation. It is a contradiction which the PA has willingly embarked upon, given its compliance with Israeli demands and its declaration that a Palestinian state based upon the 1967 borders would suffice as a permanent agreement.

In seeking to maintain the presence of Israel’s illegal state, Abbas constantly erodes the unity of the Palestinian population. If the report by Israel Radio is confirmed, the PA has evaded responsibility and accountability in safeguarding Palestinian rights, allowing the imperialist narrative to determine a conglomeration of historical experiences through compromised attempts at addressing the UN resolution in Israel’s favour.

Allowing the US to decide on the implementation of the right of return ensures the continuous marginalisation which renders Palestinian refugees not only powerless to participate, but also spectators of their own fate. Israel has mustered all its efforts in silencing the clamour for return, also expressing indignation at the symbolism exhibited in the refugee camps maintained by the UNRWA.

The combined efforts of Israel and the US exhibit a willingness to mire human rights violations within vague terminology and partial assurances until the declared failure of the negotiations.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.