Article - Reframing Palestinian Return: A New Al-Shabaka Policy Circle

“I dream of us no longer being heroes or victims; we want to be ordinary human beings. When a man becomes an ordinary being and pursues his normal activities, he can love his country or hate it, he can emigrate or stay. However, for this to apply there are objective conditions that are not in place. As long as the Palestinian person is deprived of his homeland, he is obliged to be a slave [to] that homeland.”
–Mahmoud Darwish, quoted in Badil’s Systematical Approach

Two discourses have dominated the return of Palestinian refugees over the past two decades. The first – fuelled by the Oslo process – understands return through a lens of realpolitik: Any implementation of Palestinian return must conform to the demographic, economic and political will of the Israeli establishment. This approach was most recently seen in Mahmoud Abbas’s statement that he no longer has the right to live in his hometown of Safad. The second addresses the individual and collective right of return with reference to international law, humanitarian conventions and UN resolutions. The discourses are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the domain of one particular social group, Palestinian, Israeli or otherwise.

However, the Palestinian perspectives in these two discourses have this in common: they are both essentially defensive in nature. The Oslo-fuelled discourse seeks “creative solutions” to accommodate Zionist exceptionalism – specifically the desire for an ethnocracy guaranteed by a Jewish majority. The rights-based discourse attempts to defend against efforts to undermine, obfuscate or negotiate away the established rights of Palestinian refugees. Neither discourse directly addresses the immediate needs and aspirations of Palestinians themselves, whether they are refugees, internally displaced or non-displaced.

Last year’s May 15 march by tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees on Israel’s de-facto borders challenged the geopolitical constraints on the existing discourses on return. It especially challenged Israel’s hegemony of spatial power and the “sanctity” of geographic boundaries by presenting the image of a possible, different reality. The sudden and large-scale return of refugees simply choosing to walk home seemed capable of overtaking the limited imaginings of both realpolitik and rights discourses.

In a region witnessing an upsurge in grassroots political movements, the time has come for political discourses that consider the possibility of very sudden and dramatic change, while remaining cognisant of everyday lived realities. Furthermore, at a time when the struggle for Palestinian rights is becoming increasingly visible globally, and when the taboo on questioning the Zionist project in the West is slowly being overcome, Palestinians may have an opportunity to shift the mainstream discourse on return. This could be done by accepting the unequivocal recognition of the individual and collective right of return as a given and by focusing instead, on the aspirations of Palestinians – both outside and inside Palestine – toward shaping the future of their homeland.

And, if we are to be straightforward about return, it must be acknowledged that the Palestine of today is not that of the nostalgic image of pre-1948. As a society, Palestinians themselves have transformed, partly due to the varied experiences and consequences of dispossession. Yet in spite of the best efforts of a century of settler colonialism, Palestinians remain a majority in much of their homeland, albeit under de-facto Israeli control, and most refugees and IDPs live just tens of kilometres from their original homes. It also must be recognized that a significant Jewish-Israeli settler community exists in Palestine/Israel today, the majority of which has known no other home.

As such, we would argue that any discussion of return should be grounded in the notion of decolonization. Given the nature of Palestinian displacement, the implications of this decolonization straddle the borders of historic Palestine. Furthermore, it can neither morally nor practically be reduced to the removal of the settler community. Instead, we believe that to defeat the zero-sum logic of competing ethnic nationalisms, decolonization must be understood as the act of unsettling the colonial apparatus and ideology of Zionism, and bringing about the political, judicial, economic and spatial processes necessary for restorative justice.

The existing discourse on the right of return touches upon defining what Mahmoud Darwish describes as “objective conditions that are not in place.” Yet it is his insistence on envisioning the future as a state of the “ordinary” that seems most poignant today. Adopting a long term vision along the lines suggested by Darwish would allow us to invest our creative energies in the actions and mechanisms towards “returning” to such a condition, rather than in envisaging complex future polities in pursuit of a single elusive “solution.”

There is no need to start from scratch. The challenge is to build a cohesive narrative and define a clear political horizon on the foundations of 64 years of on-going actions toward return. Beyond the expansive work of Salman Abu Sitta, which asserts the feasibility of the full repatriation of Palestinian refugees, some projects have begun to address the “practicalities” of return. Recently, for example, Badil and Zochrot embarked on a series of joint initiatives to think about the specifics of Palestinian return. Nor do such initiatives need not be framed in the abstract. The multi-faceted struggle of the people of Kafr Bir’im and Iqrit to return to their villages, and the determination of the people of Al-Araqib to engage in decades-long direct action to reclaim their ancestral lands, offer precedents of physical return on a local and communal scale. It is also possible – indeed essential – to draw lessons from cases of refugee return and reparation elsewhere in the world.

To provide a space in which to further develop these approaches, Al-Shabaka is launching a policy circle on return. With the participation of Palestinian activists and thinkers from inside and outside of ancestral Palestine, together with other key voices who can offer critical and constructive perspectives, the Al-Shabaka Policy Circle aims to contribute to a new framework for discourse and action. Decolonization will be the central theme around which to frame the political, spatial, socio-economic and symbolic aspects of exercising return. It is hoped that this accessible platform will encourage viable policy formation and strategic planning for return by exploring the specific avenues of action open to Palestinians to realize their rights in the present and build the capacity to do so in future.

Dena Qaddumi is an architect and urbanist currently based in Doha. Her research interests are primarily concerned with how social movements engage with urban space...
Al-Shabaka Policy Member Ahmad Barclay is an architect and environmental designer presently based in Beirut. He is co-founder of arenaofspeculation.org, and also works on Visualizing...
(2012, November 25)

Latest Analysis

 Politics
The erasure of Indigenous populations lies at the core of settler-colonial narratives. These narratives aim to deny existing geographies, communities, and histories to justify the displacement and replacement of one people by another. The Zionist project is no exception. Among Zionism’s founding myths is the claim that it “made the desert bloom” and that Tel Aviv, its crown jewel, arose from barren sand dunes—an uninhabitable void transformed by pioneering settlers. This framing obscures the fact that the colonial regime initially built Tel Aviv on the outskirts of Yaffa (Jaffa), a thriving Palestinian city with a rich cultural life and a booming orange trade. The “dunes” description projects emptiness and conceals the vibrant agricultural and social life that flourished in the area. By casting the land as uninhabitable until redeemed by settlers, this narrative helped justify dispossession and colonial expansion. This process intensified after 1948, when Tel Aviv absorbed the lands of ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages, including al-Sumayil, Salame, Shaykh Muwannis, and Abu Kabir, and ultimately extended into the city of Yaffa. This same settler-colonial discourse drives the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, where destruction is reframed through the narrative of “uninhabitability.” Gaza is increasingly depicted as a lifeless ruin—a framing that is far from neutral. This commentary contends that “uninhabitable” is a politically charged term that masks culpability, reproduces colonial erasure, and shapes policy and public perception in ways that profoundly affect Palestinian lives and futures. It examines the origins, function, and implications of this discourse within the logic of settler colonialism, calling for a radical shift in language from narratives that obscure violence to those affirming Palestinian presence, history, and sovereignty.
Abdalrahman Kittana· Aug 27, 2025
 Politics
Since October 2023, Israel’s assault on Gaza has produced one of the most catastrophic humanitarian crises in recent history—an unfolding genocide enabled by world powers and continuing unabated despite the sweeping global solidarity it has sparked. Alongside relentless bombardment and mass displacement, the Israeli regime is waging a deliberate campaign of starvation. In response to this Israeli-manufactured catastrophe, several European states have begun recognizing or signaling their intent to recognize the State of Palestine. Most recently, France announced its intention to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. The UK has stated it will follow suit unless Israel abides by a ceasefire and recommits to a two-state solution. The recent wave of symbolic recognitions that began in 2024 now appears to be the only step many European powers are willing to take in the face of genocide, following nearly two years of moral, material, and diplomatic support for the Israeli regime as well as near-total impunity. This roundtable conversation with Al Shabaka policy analysts Diana Buttu, Inès Abdel Razek, and Al Shabaka’s co-director, Yara Hawari, asks: Why now? What political or strategic interests are driving this wave of recognition? And what does it mean to recognize a Palestinian state, on paper, while leaving intact the structures of occupation, apartheid, and the genocidal regime that sustains them?
 Politics
In March, Israel shattered the ceasefire in Gaza by resuming its bombing campaign at full force and enforcing a total blockade on humanitarian aid—ushering in a new phase of the ongoing genocide. In response to mounting international criticism, the Israeli regime introduced a tightly controlled aid scheme designed not to alleviate suffering, but to obscure its use of starvation as a weapon of collective punishment. Through the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), Israel has transformed humanitarian aid into a tool of control, coercion, and forced displacement. Israeli forces have additionally blocked UN and other aid agencies from accessing over 400 distribution points they once operated throughout Gaza. They consequently forced two million Palestinians to rely on just four GHF sites, most near its southern border in what appears to be a deliberate effort to push mass displacement toward Egypt. Investigations have also revealed how US-based private contractors are actively profiting from the GHF’s deadly operations. In this policy lab, Yara Asi and Alex Feagans join host Tariq Kenney-Shawa to discuss how the GHF fits into Israel’s genocidal strategy—and to expose the network of individuals and companies profiting from what has been a death trap masquerading as humanitarian assistance.
Skip to content