AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): In a controversial development, Israel announced the reopening of the Rafah border crossing, a move that, in practice, resulted in the return of only 12 Palestinians to the Gaza Strip. Despite being aware of serious risks to their lives, the individuals chose to return to their homeland rather than remain in exile, a decision observers say underscores the profound identity bond Palestinians maintain with their land.
The development comes after the unveiling of a proposal described as a “comprehensive Gaza plan” by Israel and the United States. According to reports, the plan was drafted without Palestinian participation and effectively sidelines the option of a large-scale return of displaced Palestinians.
At the same time, reports of the resignation of Omar Shakir, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, following the halt of a report concerning the “right of return of Palestinians,” have sparked criticism over what some describe as mounting pressure on advocates of this internationally recognized right.
Analysts say the convergence of these developments indicates that the “right of return,” regarded as one of the most fundamental Palestinian demands, is at a particularly sensitive historical juncture. The right, encompassing the return of Palestinian refugees displaced since 1948 to their homes and properties, is considered under international law to be both an individual and collective right that does not expire with time, political negotiations, or changes in sovereignty.
Legal experts stress that the right of return is not merely an abstract legal claim, but one directly tied to Palestinian identity, survival, and the right to self-determination. In their view, proposals labeled as “peace plans” that offer solutions on all issues except return effectively overlook the existential dimension of Palestinians as a people.
The roots of the dispute trace back to the 1948 “Nakba,” during which more than 750,000 Palestinians were displaced, hundreds of villages were destroyed, and the social and geographic fabric of Palestinian society was dismantled. The resulting fragmentation divided Palestinians among Gaza, the West Bank, the territories occupied in 1948, refugee camps in neighboring countries, and the broader diaspora, conditions that observers say have impeded unified sovereignty and self-governance.
In subsequent decades, frameworks such as the Oslo Accords, rather than leading to the realization of an independent state, have been criticized for coinciding with expanded settlement activity and the deepening of discriminatory structures. Critics argue that these processes have rested on the assumption that the events of 1948 belong to the “past” and require no redress, whereas Palestinians maintain that the consequences of the Nakba remain ongoing.
Over the past two years, the devastating war in Gaza has added new dimensions to the crisis. Various estimates indicate that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed and that much of the territory’s urban, educational, and healthcare infrastructure has been destroyed. Even under such conditions, field reports suggest Palestinians continue to emphasize the preservation of their cultural identity, language, and connection to their land.
Historical comparisons also show that the right of return has been recognized as an integral component of peace processes in other international conflicts, from Rwanda and Bosnia to Cyprus and Kosovo. From this perspective, critics contend that claims of the “impossibility” of Palestinian return reflect not a legal reality, but a political decision aimed at maintaining the status quo.
Overall, while the return of 12 Palestinians through the Rafah crossing is numerically limited, it has taken on symbolic significance, once again placing the “right of return” at the forefront of public debate, a question many believe must be addressed for any peace plan to achieve justice and durability.
**************
End/ 345A
