Blog post by Mercy Chepkirui Lagat*

The Palestinian refugee situation remains a protracted and politically sensitive displacement crisis. Since 1948, over six million Palestinian refugees living across the Middle East and registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) remain stateless and in a protracted exile with no plan for a durable solution. Recently, reports of attempts between the United States, Israel and some Eastern African states (Somalia, Somaliland and Sudan) to resettle Palestinians have emerged. This comes at a time when the United States (US) president proposed a postwar plan to reconstruct Gaza into a “Middle Eastern Riviera”. This a significant yet controversial geopolitical shift.

The global refugee regime recognizes resettlement as a durable solution, seeing refugees move to a third country with the guarantee of international protection and the hope of eventual permanent residency. However, the framing of this new proposed deal raises critical questions: is resettlement in the Palestinian case a rights-based resettlement solution or the forced displacement of a population to serve geopolitical interests? Furthermore, what implications does this have on the right of return for Palestinians, and what are the possible implications on the proposed host states in the Horn of Africa, already grappling with diverse displacement dynamics?

Return or Resettlement?

The Palestinian refugee crisis began in 1948 after the Arab-Israeli war. Since then, several waves of displacement have occurred. Today, over 5.9 million Palestinian refugees remain stateless and receive services from UNRWA. Unlike other refugee populations falling within the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) protection mandate, Palestinian refugees generally fall under a specialized regime governed by UNRWA. Pursuing durable solutions for Palestinian refugees falls outside of the scope of UNRWA’s mandate which is largely focused on development and humanitarianism.  This places many Palestinian refugees at a disadvantage, limiting their access to global resettlement programs. As such, the right of return remains central to the Palestinian refugee question. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 affirmed the right of return for Palestinian refugees. However, subsequent peace processes have failed to address their status, leaving Palestinians as a vulnerable and marginalized group living in a cycle of statelessness.

Similarly, the question of resettlement as a durable solution for Palestinians is not new. The UN has in the past attempted to resettle Palestinian refugees into Arab host states or third countries imagined as Arab countries due to shared cultural and linguistic ties. While this plan was supported by the UK and the US, it faced subsequent resistance from Palestinian refugees as well as opposition from Arab States. Palestinian refugees, on the one hand, perceived an existing bias in the UN and the international community towards Israel; Arab countries, on the other, feared granting citizenship to a large number of refugees through resettlement. Nonetheless, Palestinian individuals have pursued third country resettlement, acquiring citizenship in North America, Latin America and Europe. In spite of this, such individuals still hold on to Palestinian identity with the hope for future repatriation of exiled communities. 

Why African States?

A new frontier for resettlement of Palestinian refugees is emerging within diplomatic spheres. Reports have emerged that possible negotiations are underway between the USA, Israel, and several East African states, notably Somalia, Sudan and Somaliland, for them to host Palestinians displaced from Gaza. This comes at a time where countries in the Middle East including Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among other US allies, have rejected the plan as threatening instability and undermining the push for a two-state solution. AP News observe that these talks could fall within the broader framework of the Abraham Accords towards regional alignment efforts. This gives leverage to the US and Israel as they can offer security, diplomatic and financial incentives to the potential East African partners.   

Similarly, resettling Palestinians outside of the Middle East serves US and Israel’s strategic interests. This move could potentially be perceived to neutralize the demand for the right of return, reduce the hurdles in the negotiation for a final status agreement and possibly reduce UNRWA’s role. However, the framing of this possible deal raises critical protection and legal concerns. UNHCR guidelines stipulate that resettlement should be voluntary and rights based. Therefore, are Palestinians being meaningfully consulted? Additionally, would the Palestinian refugees be granted citizenship or will this deal be a transfer of statelessness from one region to another? Can the already fragile countries of Somalia, Sudan and Somaliland safely integrate a politically sensitive refugee population or merely create new camps and settlements?

The proposed states are no stranger to refugee flows. Sudan currently hosts almost 1 million refugees, largely from South Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea. Due to the ongoing armed conflict in the country, forced displacement within and to neighbouring countries has increased. Somalia on the other hand has been a source of refugees fleeing into other East African states due to decades of protracted conflicts and climate induced migration. Somaliland remains diplomatically isolated with existing contestations of its recognition as a state. Therefore, relocation of Palestinians into these states could exacerbate instabilities in the region as well as create new fault lines for ethnic tensions and resource scarcity. Despite this risk, resettlement could be a calculated strategy to support Sudan’s fragile transitional government, leverage statehood recognition for Somaliland and build an external alliance for Somalia as it emerges from decades of conflict.

Conclusion

The proposed Palestinian resettlement in Eastern Africa reflects a web of geopolitical interests and refugee protection concerns. Such a proposal of forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza sidesteps the right of return, reflecting a disregard for international refugee law principles of voluntariness, dignity and long-term protection. The exclusion of Palestinian voices from this discussion further reveals that this proposal is not a durable solution but a strategic solution for the various states involved. Additionally, relocating them to fragile states already burdened by displacement presents refugees as a political currency trading off statelessness with uncertainty.  Previously, attempts towards resettlement have constantly reaffirmed that Palestinians value their land, identity and the political symbolism of return. Therefore, just and durable solutions should prioritize Palestinian agency, adhere to international norms and seek inclusive multilateral engagements.  

*Mercy Chepkirui Lagat is a student pursuing an MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration at the Refugee Law Initiative.

---

The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.