Second Draft

May of this year will mark the seventieth anniversary of the Nakba, Arabic for the Catastrophe, the 1948 expulsion of over seven-hundred thousand Palestinians from historical Israel/Palestine in the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli War and Israeli independence. There are now around seven million refugees, displaced peoples, and their descendants spread across the world, mostly concentrated in the Middle East. The political and ideological landscape has changed immensely due to back and forth peace deals between Israel and Palestine. Great Intro so far! These changes have a profound effect on the community of refugees and their descendants in terms of how they perceive the “homeland”. In light of the seventieth anniversary of the Nakba, what are the opinions and perceptions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants when asked about their homeland? How do they see the future of Palestinians? In my research I would like to address the prevailing forces that drive the politics, opinions, and sentiments of refugees and their descendants. More specifically there will be discussion of how Palestinians view the homeland through their ideologies and the importance of key issues such as right of return and secular versus Islamist discourse.

To better construct a meaningful dialogue about the issues surrounding Palestinian nationalism, the core concepts and ideas must be explained. As previously explained, the Nakba (in Arabic النكبة en-Nakba, the Catastrophe) was the 1948 expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from the land just previously declared as the independent state of Israel. This event was key in the development of what is known today as Palestinian nationalism. It is not to say that Palestinian nationalism began in 1948, instead it began during a period of literary renaissance throughout the Levant, most notably in what is now Syria and Lebanon. At that point nationalism among Arabs was more focused on a general Arab nationalism as the idea of individual nationalistic identities had yet to prosper. The movement took on a particularly Palestinian identity in response to Zionism, a secular Jewish movement centered on the return of the Jewish people to Palestine or Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel. Growing anti-Zionist sentiment culminated in outright rebellion in 1936 which was repressed by the British Mandatory authorities and Zionist paramilitary groups, leading to an imbalance of power based in the disarmament of Palestinian Arabs. In 1948 at the expiration of the British Mandate over Palestine the Jewish Agency for Palestine declared the establishment of Israel in Eretz Yisrael. Throughout the ensuing war, Israel systematically depopulated hundreds of Arab settlements, displacing over seven hundred thousand people. This event was the defining moment in what makes Palestinian nationalism today as well as the key issues that define it such as right of return, homeland nationalism, secular versus Islamist discourse, and the shape of a finalized and lasting peaceful solution to the conflict. Right of return for Palestinian refugees and displaced peoples refers to the right to return to Israel/Palestine and potentially the right to lost property and land, though this is more contested. This paper will analyze the arguments and opinions in these key issues to determine the shape of refugee identity in terms of their homeland.

A central theme throughout in Palestinian and refugee identity is the continuing Nakba, meaning that the Nakba was not simply a one-time event, its effects continue until now and in fact, the Nakba itself is a continuous entity, ever-changing and affecting Palestinians worldwide. A member of the body of scholars focusing on the Nakba and its effects, Adel Manna clearly states in his article “The Palestinian Nakba and its Continuous Repercussions, “The experience of statelessness and the injustice which befell the refugees has only intensified” (Manna, 87). He argues that it is incorrect to describe the Nakba as one event centered on the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs and its immediate effects, but rather as an accumulation of all events and experiences that have befallen Palestinian Arabs since 1948. In abiding by this definition of the Nakba Israel was not the only perpetrator of Palestinian woes. Upon their expulsion from Palestine, countries that received refugees placed them in camps or became displaced non-citizens in these countries. Palestinians became a marginalized community within their host countries where Arabs saw them with contempt and refused to integrate them into the fabric of society. Manna writes, “The lip-service support for the Palestinian cause was accompanied by contempt and humiliation for Palestinian refugees within Arab societies” (Manna, 92). Not only were refugees cast aside, leaders of Arab countries championed the Palestinian cause solely as a means of building support. In public, Arabs saw the Palestinian crisis as a unifying issue while privately reviling refugees and distancing themselves from camps. Time and time again Palestinian refugees were cast aside by their host countries left to be supported by organizations such as the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) and the Red Cross, furthering the divide between Arab states and their Palestinian guests. Two countries, and only one Arab country, gave Palestinians citizenship; Israel and Jordan. However, both governments focused on control rather and delegitimized Palestinian identity, as Manna elucidates. He uses simple but effective words to explain that Palestinians lost their unity when they lost their homeland and became homeless in a world based on the nation state system (Manna, 93). Hardship is central to Palestinian identity and this continued Nakba solidified the community. Manna explains, “The loss of the homeland and the feeling of injustice, betrayal and victimization provided a feeling of commonality” (Manna, 92). Despite having been torn asunder as a unified community, Palestinians were only strengthened in the face of this hardship and today this hardship forms the spine of Palestinian identity.

Among the myriad proposed solutions to the conflict and refugee crisis there are shared issues that the debate hinges on, including the status of Jerusalem, the framework for peace and self-determination (i.e. two-state versus one-state), and the right of return for refugees and displaced Palestinians. Right of return itself is seen and conceptualized by a number of different viewpoints but the basic tenets come from language used in international documents adopted by the United Nations such as United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 which states that the United Nations, “Reaffirms [also] the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return” (United Nations General Assembly resolution 3236). Another argument contends that the Israeli Law of Return where Jews can immigrate to a land where they have no familial ties represents an injustice against the Palestinians who cannot return to a place where their direct ancestors lived. Israeli officials and scholars argue that there were no binding international decisions, only recommendations, and, by allowing Palestinian Arabs to live in Israel, that the notion of a Jewish state would cease to exist which will not be allowed by the Israeli government. However, within the current framework right of return is considered to be an issue that will be tabled until final discussions before the implementation of a lasting solution.

From every angle this is a complex issue however for the purposes of this research legal precedent is not the goal. Current Palestinian opinions on the matter are mostly unified in support of an immediate right of return as for many the pain of being separated from their ancestral home is unbearable. In Julianne Weinzimmer’s book Homeland Conflict and Identity for Palestinian and Jewish Israeli Americans she interviews Palestinians to bring out intimate details about their identities. In one interview Mansur, a Palestinian living in the United States, describes his relationship to a postcard displaying an old man who he says is carrying a burden. Mansur explains, “This guy represents me. I am carrying on my shoulders the huge burden of the Palestinian suffering, the pain of the diaspora, being denied the right to be free, to go and visit my family when I want to, to go to the farm that I grew up as a little child around, and to enjoy what my father left me” (Weinzimmer, 50). He relates to Weinzimmer the pain of having no right to experience a place that he only hears stories about. For Mansur, the issue is much more than a talking piece to be used in large-scale political bargaining, its simply the ability to feel connected to something deeply rooted within him but just out of reach.