The development of camp affects the right of return.
We are in the middle point of coming back or staying in the refugee camp:
a) improve the life vs normalizing
b) reinforce the right of return

A bridge between Deheisheh and Doha in area c, built by refugees regardless by Oslo rules. Challanging power. Deheisheh is the only refugee camp to have strong leadership, they are really protecting their identity as refugees.

Al Feneiq cultural center rised in a previous Jordanian military compound. They fought to build it, it’s quite recent (7 years).

Who and what is to transmit the identity of refugee (as right of return)?

Politicians are the most exploiting the miserability of refugees, not the refugees themselves, to keep the right of return… “why can’t we have the same civil rights of local inhabitants?” (Syrian, Lebanese, for i.e.)

If Deheisheh people could return… how many of them would choose to return in their old houses? BUT: what does it mean to return? What are the round conditions than? “the old go back… the young remain”.

The right of:
- civil rights
- return (move freely) > would you stay here or there…*
- the Mediterranean, the sea

*why they have to choose just one location? And not both? Yafo and Ramallah for i.e.
And why just the refugees and not the other Palestinian?

“Let them suffering”… so we have a right on them. To use pain is a typical move for socio-politic strategies.

Do you see the figure of the refugee as something absorbed in nationality or something else? “No… a new form of CITIZENSHIP”.

For the concept of nationality you have just ONE IDENTITY. While we are many things at once.

The refugee are more and more, not less… so it’s becoming a status no more manageable by the nations themselves (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan…).

It’s a big issue for the stability of Middle East.