Understanding the Refugee Crisis in Gaza: Land and Home Reversion from Israel

The Palestinian refugee crisis in Gaza is deeply rooted in historical events, notably the Nakba (Catastrophe) of 1948, when vast numbers of Palestinians were displaced by the establishment of the State of Israel. Today, approximately 70% of Gaza's population is made up of refugees who fled from their homes due to violence and persecution by Israeli militias during the Nakba. Despite this, the question remains: why doesn't Israel return the land and homes to its displaced citizens?

Why Israel Refuses to Revert Land and Homes

Israel’s persistent refusal to revert land and homes to Palestinian refugees is a complex issue with deep political, social, and historical roots. There are fundamental reasons why Israel might be unwilling to do so:

1. Possession of Land: Many of these refugees did not own their former homes or the land they were displaced from. Instead, they were often tenants or squatters. Even if they owned some assets, the physical infrastructure no longer exists due to the passage of time and subsequent conflicts.

2. Land Crowding: Reverting land and homes to refugees would present significant challenges, especially given that many families today are several generations removed from their ancestors. For example, fitting 256 great-great-grandchildren, 64 great-grandchildren and more into a 50 square meter apartment, much like the 50 square meters their great-grandparents may have lived in, would be fundamentally impossible.

The Generational Gap and Fragmentation

The demographic composition of the current Palestinian refugee population in Gaza is increasingly complex. While the youngest actual refugees might be at least 75 years old, the majority are now in the third and fourth generations. This means that returning homes to these refugees would be equivalent to returning land to distant historical ancestors, which is largely impractical and unrealistic. This is a far cry from the comparison where Israel would hypothetically need to return Manhattan and other lands to Native Americans, as suggested in the analogy.

The Role of External Enemies

Another significant reason is the strategic role played by the idea of an "external enemy" in maintaining Israeli unity and distraction from more pressing domestic issues. By framing the conflict through the prism of external threats—such as those posed by neighboring Arab states during the early days of the State of Israel—the narrative of a perpetual conflict serves to unify the Israeli population and provides a reason to avoid addressing internal issues, such as the ongoing plight of Palestinian refugees.

For instance, according to Babua, 'The moment Israel was formed, every Arab state attacked Israel. They lost horribly.' This narrative not only justifies Israel's actions but also serves to highlight the ongoing importance of national security, overshadowing the humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees.

Conclusion and Way Forward

Addressing the refugee crisis in Gaza requires a multifaceted approach that recognizes the historical, cultural, and social dimensions of the issue. While land reversion may not be feasible, discussions about reparations, compensation, and the establishment of a more just and equitable relationship between Israel and Palestine are essential. The international community must play a critical role in facilitating dialogue and providing support for a sustainable solution.