"We are coming, Allahu Akbar": Palestinian Refugee Sparks Security Debate in Belgium

Would Belgium be obligated to receive a Gazan refugee as a resident and provide protection? And how does international law address a situation where, after receiving asylum and a place to live, the same person starts threatening the country that gave him shelter? The answer is nuanced, but the legal framework provides guidance.

International Law and Palestinian Refugees

The legal status of Palestinian refugees is complex, shaped by decades of historical events and international legal frameworks. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is someone who has fled their country due to a well-founded fear of persecution.

In the Palestinian context, international law applies differently. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA, established 1949) defines a Palestinian refugee as:

“Persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict, and their descendants.”

Unlike the UNHCR definition, refugee status under UNRWA can be inherited, which explains why millions of Palestinians are officially recognized as refugees today.

From this perspective, a Gazan who receives asylum in Belgium is legally recognized as a refugee under international law. However, the protections afforded by the state are conditional when the refugee poses a threat to the host country.

When Protection Meets Threat

In his own words, the individual in question declared:

“When I finish with Israel, I’m gonna come and finish with Europe.”

International law imposes obligations on states to protect refugees, particularly through the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be at risk. This principle compels countries to provide protection to those who meet the criteria of refugee status.

However, the law also recognizes limits when security is at stake. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Articles 32(1) and 33(2):

In this case, the threat appears explicit:

“We are coming, we are Isram, you know. Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar. God will bring the non-muslim to hell, inshallah.”

Given these declarations, Belgium and other host states would have the legal right and responsibility to act, potentially including expulsion, to ensure the safety of their citizens.

International law supports the protection of refugees, but it does not require a state to provide sanctuary to individuals who actively threaten national security. While Palestinian refugee status under UNRWA or international law may grant asylum initially, it can be revoked if the refugee’s behavior endangers the host country.

The case of this Gazan illustrates the delicate balance between humanitarian obligations and state security, a balance that remains central to international refugee law today.