A Long Way Home

Master’s Thesis

A Long Way Home

Spontaneous Returns and Potential Returns of Syrian Refugees Examined

Author: Shant Kerbabian

Supervisor: Manuela Nilsson

Term: VT19

Subject: Peace and Development Work

Level: Master’s Level

Course code: 4FU42E

Abstract

The recent wave of Syrian refugees’ spontaneous return to conflict areas in Syria is not a new phenomenon, various cases of return to areas that do not meet safety and security standards has happened in cases like Somali refugees returning from Kenya or Angolan refugees returning from Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, the Syrian case is important to study in order to examine any new patterns or elements in refugee returns that could arise or could be unpacked. This study examines Syrian refugees’ spontaneous returns, to what is considered by the international community as unsafe Syria and discusses the reasons for return that were provided by refugees returning currently and refugees who answer the question of return. The study finds that the notion of “home” and “homeland” are amongst the most influential when it comes to the decision to return coupled with push factors like livelihood issues and discrimination in host countries, in addition to pull factors from country of origin like amnesty regarding military conscription. The study finds that refugees not returning do so due to starting a new life, not having guarantees of safety and having lost everything in their home country. The study confirms King’s (2000) argument regarding home country pull factors having a bigger influence in impacting refugee returns.

This study uses discourse analysis as a method using the proposed framework of Teun A. van Dijk’s (1985, 2011), the primary data source are interviews by Syrian refugees on YouTube in the Arabic Language. YouTube was chosen due to the role it played throughout the Syrian uprising in providing news to Syrians. The analysis of the data will use a four-dimensional framework which dissects push and pull factors, then examines them through the transnational and diaspora theories for refugee returns and has the place-identity theory as an overall starting point.

The study concludes by recommending the international community pays more attention to the psychological factors from the home country so interventions and programmes of return make sure refugees are safe, protected and not falsely lured into return.

Key words

Syria, Return Migration, Spontaneous Return, Syrian Refugees, Diaspora, Homeland, transnationalism

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank first of all my supervisor, Manuela Nilsson, for the time, resources and guidance she provided throughout the writing process, I would also like to thank all the professors, staff and my classmates at Linnaeus University for the dedication, support and inspiration.

I would also like thank my family for the good genes and the unconditional love.

Also, my partner for the love and support throughout the whole year.

iii

Table of contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgments ...... iii Table of contents ...... iv List of Figures ...... v List of Abbreviations ...... vi 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Research Problem and Relevance ...... 2 1.3 Objective and Research Questions: ...... 4 1.4 Methodological and Analytical Framework...... 4 1.5 Structure ...... 5 2 Theoretical and Analytical Framework ...... 5 2.1 Forms of Voluntary Return Migration ...... 5 2.2 Other Factors Impacting Return Decisions: ...... 8 2.3 Return migration during conflict: ...... 8 2.4 Return Migration and Transnationalism: ...... 9 2.5 Diaspora: ...... 11 2.6 Home, Place and Identity: ...... 13 2.7 Four-Dimensional Analytical Framework ...... 14 3 Methodological Framework: ...... 15 3.1 Research Design: ...... 15 3.2 Data Collection and Analysis: ...... 15 3.3 Discourse Analysis ...... 16 3.4 Limitations: ...... 17 3.5 Delimitations: ...... 17 3.6 Ethical Considerations: ...... 17 4 Findings ...... 18 4.1 Syrians on their Way to Syria (Why Return?) ...... 18 4.1.1 “Homeland is precious”: ...... 18 4.1.2 Discrimination and Livelihood Issues ...... 21 4.1.3 Amnesty as a Pull Factor for Young Men ...... 22 4.2 Syrians Abroad Discussing Return (Would You Return?) ...... 23 4.2.1 Refugees Who Would Return ...... 24 4.2.2 “Yes ... If ... “ ...... 26 4.2.3 No Return ...... 27 5 Analysis & Discussion ...... 32 6 Conclusion ...... 38 References:...... 41 Videos ...... 54

List of Figures

Figure 1: Return Migration Patter Graph …………………………………….. 32

List of Abbreviations

BBC – British Broadcasting Corporation

CAN – Channel News Asia

CNN – Cable News Network

DRC – Democratic Republic of Congo

IDP – Internally Displaced Persons

IOM – International Organization for Migration

UK – United Kingdom

UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UN – United Nations

US – United States

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Syrian revolution turned civil war has ravaged the country and caused one of the biggest refugee crises in recent history (World Vision, 2019). According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, over 5.6 million Syrians have fled the country and around 6.2 Syrians are internally displaced (UNHCR, 2019 a). What started as a revolution in March 2011 turned into a bloody civil war after the Syrian government's violent crackdown on peaceful protestors with over 400,000 Syrians killed to this day (CNN, 2019). After the government’s crackdown on the peaceful demonstrators many from the Syrian army started defecting and in July 2011 the formation of the Free Syrian Army was announced with the aim of overthrowing the government. This marked the beginning of a violent conflict that soon slid into a civil war with sectarian elements considering Syria’s majority being Sunni Muslims and the Syrian security apparatus being controlled by members of the Alawite Muslims which the president of Syria and all key figures in the government are a member of (Al Jazeera, 2018). Many international actors got involved, including Russia and Iran in support of the Syrian government while Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UK and France were involved in supporting rebels in various forms. Other regional actors involved in the conflict include Shia militia groups from Iraq and Lebanon-based Hezbollah. With the rise of the Islamic State in 2013, a new actor with religious extremist elements emerged. In 2015 when the power balance was shifting towards the rebels, Russia decided to intervene and launched a campaign against what it called “terrorist groups” which included Islamic State groups but also anti-Assad rebel groups. Many efforts by the UN Security Council were all met with vetoes by the Russian government in defense of the Syrian government. According to Human Rights Watch, all warring parties disregarded and continue to disregard human rights and humanitarian law with the Syrian government and its allies ramping up the race to secure territories by using prohibited chemical weapons, illegal indiscriminate attacks and stopping the flow of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile anti- government rebel groups have indiscriminately attacked government held areas not allowing civilians to flee (Al Jazeera, 2018; BBC, 2018; Human Rights Watch, 2019).

After over 8 years of fighting, the Syrian regime and its allies now control most of the territory of Syria (Chughtai, 2019). The Syrian regime and its allies, mainly Russia and Iran, now controlling major territories has sparked discussions throughout the last year on the return of Syrian refugees to Syria. Russia has voiced plans to secure returns while the president of Lebanon has asked for support to return refugees without the precondition of a peace deal, resulting in the UNHCR predicting the return of around 250,000 Syrian refugees to Syria in 2019 (Kayyali 2018, CNA 2019, Nebehay 2018).

1.2 Research Problem and Relevance

The International Organization for Migration (2018) defines return as the act or process of going back to the point of departure. This could be within the country as in the case of internally displaced persons (IDPs) or between country of origin and destination like in the case of refugees, asylum seekers and migrant workers. The IOM also recognizes two main types of return; voluntary return, which could be spontaneous or assisted, and forced return. This study will look into the voluntary return of Syrian refugees (Migration Data Portal, 2019)

Voluntary return is regarded by the international community as one of the three durable and desirable solutions for refugees which also include local integration and resettlement (UNHCR, 2019 b). In 1992 the High Commissioner of UNHCR thus announced a decade of voluntary returns which resulted in major return moves since then to Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Africa and Rwanda. Nevertheless, refugee numbers have been increasing due to various new conflicts. New refugees have thus replaced the previous ones, or some of the previous ones that were once returned have been uprooted again due to new conflicts. Such has been the case in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan (Bakewell, 1996).

One of the cases where voluntary return is a hotly debated question is Syria. According to figures by the UNHCR, around 37000 Syrians have returned to Syria in 2018 although the UN agency announced that it cannot facilitate the return of refugees as the country is still not safe. However, the move to return seems to be ongoing despite the conditions in the country not being suitable and with war still prevailing. This is not a unique situation. A similar return case includes for example the return of around 33,000 Somali refugees to Somalia from Kenya in 2013, despite the fact that the country at the time had a youth unemployment rate of 67% according to the United Nations Development Programme and with the country being under conflict, famine and lack of security. However, these return figures were a result of a number of push and pull factors. The push factors included the increase in random arrests and police harassment by the police in Kenya, where many Somalian refugees resided, the diminished space for asylum in Kenya and the cutting of food aid. Pull

factors on the other hand included the perception of stability in Somalia, potential livelihood opportunities, chances to reunite with family and accessing land in Somalia (Majidi, 2017). Another relevant case of refugee return is the case of refugee returns to Angola from Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, hosting the majority of Angolan refugees. Following the peace agreement that was enacted by the signing of the Luena Accords in April 2002, the Angolan government signed tripartite agreements with the UNHCR, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo to facilitate returns in March 2003. However, refugees did not wait for the formalities. Before the implementation of the agreement had taken place, 130 000 refugees had already returned to Angola from DRC, Zambia and Namibia (Human Rights Watch, 2003). Refugees decided to return despite lack of assistance, lack of security, police harassment at crossing points, danger from mines and munitions. The return of refugees under these condition was also due to certain push and pull factors. The push factors included the cutting of food aid, pressure from host countries and the UNHCR by reducing protection for refugees and limiting the issuing of legal documents. On the other hand, pull factors included pressure from the Angolan authorities regarding deadlines to claim property or other rights as well as financial incentives to return (Harild, Christensen and Zetter, 2015).

These two examples illustrate that the Syrian case does not stand alone. Refugees return to Syria despite the unsafe conditions. This is of great concern to the international community. On the other hand, the return of Syrian refugees back to Syria would be the best solution for fostering peace and increasing development levels in Syria according to the UNHCR which favors the durable solution of refugee return to the country of origin, the other two durable solutions according to UNCHR are third country resettlement and settlement in the country of refuge (1980, 1987). It also contributes to the stabilization of the region by lifting the economic burden of the host countries (Cherri, Arcos González & Castro Delgado, 2016; Akgündüz, van den Berg, Hassink, 2015).Thus looking into the reasons behind Syrians choosing to return despite the uncertainty and volatility of the situation in Syria is important in order to address safe returns of Syrians in order to feed into policy recommendations that can pave the way for a sustained returns, which will ultimately contribute to the development and the rebuilding of the future Syria. Another element that contributes to the relevance of this study is the fact that many studies have been conducted on various cases of refugee returns, some which were presented above and others to be discussed in the literature review. However, very few studies have examined the return of Syrian refugees. Those that have been conducted have, mainly been produced by organizations or think tanks (Seefar, 2018; Hall 2018), approaching return from an organizational perspective rather than an academic one. This study aims to contribute with insights into, not only the pragmatic push and pull reasons, but also the psychological reasons behind Syrians returning to an unsafe Syria by providing an academic approach to the discourse. While previous studies being made have included data from refugees in a host country (e.g. Turkey) and have discussed prospects of return and data by internally displaced people in Syria, this study aims at

examining the issue of return to Syria by examining YouTube interviews of Syrian refugees returning to Syria and refugees in host countries as well. The study also aims to provide a deeper understanding of the notions that emerge from the interviews by using the Transnational and Diaspora approaches since they both deal with explaining dynamics of migrant and refugee groups and their relationship with the concept of “home”. Additionally, the Place Identity Theory will look into attachment by Syrian refugees to Syria and examine the notion of “home” and its impact on return decisions. The study will bring additional insights regarding spontaneous returns of refugees to unsafe locations and pinpoint the role of psychological factors in addition to pragmatic factors regarding refugee returns, this will enable the international community design better return schemes and make sure refugees as a vulnerable population are being protected.

1.3 Objective and Research Questions:

This study aims to contribute to the limited research concerning Syrian refugee returns to an unsafe and volatile Syria by examining the discourses presented by refugees in interviews on YouTube about their return prospects and factors influencing their decision to stay in the host country or to return to Syria. The research will look into pull factors pulling Syrians back to Syria and push factors pushing them away from their countries of refuge. The following questions will be answered based on the findings:

• Why are Syrian refugees returning to Syria considering the unsafe conditions?

• Would Syrian refugees return to Syria if safe conditions were achieved? And why?

1.4 Methodological and Analytical Framework

The purpose of qualitative research according to John W. Creswell (2014) is to study individuals or groups and how they understand a social or human issue. Since this study aims to examine the reasons behind Syrian refugees returning to Syria, its main research method must necessarily be a qualitative research method. Additionally, as a qualitative and abductive study, this paper will examine words and text to re-contextualize the issue of return to Syria to gain a deeper understanding of the research objective as described by Bryman (2016) and Danemark (2002). The study will use YouTube videos of interviews conducted in Arabic with Syrian refugees about returning to Syria and will use discourse

analysis as a method of analysis based on Teun A. van Dijk’s (1985, 2011) approach to discourse analysis by looking not only into the linguistic aspects of interviews but also the context, style, social interactions and nonverbal elements in the interviews like tone of voice and body language. These interviews will serve as the data/text that will be analyzed and re-contextualized with the assistance of the four-dimensional analytical framework comprised of four approaches to return migration: push and pull factors, transnational theory, diaspora theory and place-identity.

1.5 Structure

After the first introductory chapter, the second chapter will present the theoretical and analytical framework which will include the conceptual frameworks that the study deals with. The third chapter will include the methodological framework used in the study, followed by the findings in chapter four. In chapter five, the analysis of the findings will be introduced, followed by discussion and conclusions of the research in chapter six.

2 Theoretical and Analytical Framework

2.1 Forms of Voluntary Return Migration

In order to place the study within the wider context of the research debates around the different types of return migration of refugees, the different push and pull factors contributing to the act of return and various factors impacting the decision to return, the researcher has conducted a review of the existing literature, relying mainly of academic books and journals. A number of points emerge from the review.

Harild, Christensen and Zetter (2015) mention two types of return; spontaneous return and assisted return. However, as Black (2002) demonstrates, voluntary return is a very complex process and the reality of it is very different. The assisted return programmes to Bosnia,, such as the one administered by the (IOM), the Reintegration and Emigration Programme for Asylum Seekers in Germany (REAG), the German Assisted Return Programme (GARP) and the return programme from Switzerland which was supervised by the Swiss government were all widely criticized for not always

being “voluntary” due to the many push factors that prompted refugees to take part of them, such as legal documentations issues and economic factors..(Black et al., 2004).

According to Harild, Christensen and Zetter (2015) assisted voluntary return includes transportation, food or cash and other needed services provided by other actors to facilitate the return. These returns have been implemented by the UNHCR and other partner organization, usually in very difficult conditions. However UNHCR has very specific conditions to take part in a return scheme. The conditions are highlighted in Conclusion 19 (1980) and 40 (1985) of its Executive Committee with four preconditions:

- Fundamentally changed circumstances with the cause of refugee movement being removed.

- Decision to return has to be completely voluntary (“freely expressed wish”).

- Tripartite agreements in place with country of origin, host country and the UNHCR which would provide formal guarantees of security of return.

- Return to be conducted in safe and dignified manner with no threats to the returnees’ security. (Stein and Cuny, 1994).

Assisted voluntary returns, according to Harild, Christensen and Zetter (2015) could be politically driven in terms of planning. For example, the return to Cambodia of refugees from Thailand was based on agreements that called for the voluntary return of Cambodians to participate in the national election in 1993 (Ballard, 2002). Likewise, the case of Bosnia where returns after the Dayton Peace Accords were not very successful, the political agendas in various European countries like Germany or the United Kingdom, who were anxious to take part in the return process, were instrumental in facilitating returns. This efficiently constituted a push factor (Harild, Christensen and Zetter, 2015).

Assisted voluntary returns are not always de facto voluntary. The examples of the return of Cambodian refugees from Thailand, Burundian refugees from Tanzania, and Liberian refugees from Ghana all showcase situations where refugees did not have a real option of choosing between return or staying by making their own assessments and weighing in different solutions. Similarly, Afghan refugees were practically pushed from Iran with the restrictions that were imposed on access to services and freedom of movement in 1992 which oversaw the deportation of around 490 000 Afghans in 2007 and 2008 (UNHCR, 1994:2).

While Harild, Christensen and Zetter (2015) recognize that many return cases have been arranged with formal peace agreements or some other political arrangement, they argue that actual return takes

place mostly to areas with no stability and peace. They called this trend “spontaneous” returns like the ones in Angola, Afghanistan, Liberia, South Sudan and Iraq to some extent. All of those countries experienced early spontaneous returns before having assisted voluntary return programmes established. Interestingly, the numbers of spontaneous returnees initially exceeded the ones who returned via return schemes. Spontaneous returns in all of the countries had one thing in common, namely that they all happened despite unfavorable conditions in the country of origin. Angola, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Iraq were war exhausted, with military conflicts draining both countries economically and socially. The countries had no infrastructure and were left with no governance structures. However, all of the previously mentioned issues in the countries of origin did not stop refugees’ spontaneous return, some of them leaving comfortable conditions in the host countries, especially in the case of return to Angola, but also could apply to those who returned to Afghanistan and South Sudan (Harild, Christensen and Zetter, 2015).

King (2000) makes a summary of the motivations for spontaneous returns and puts them into categories: economic motivations, social motivations, family related and political motivations. Economic motivations could include pull factors like higher wages and better economic opportunities or push factors like source of funding being cut or change in the economic stability to the worst. Social motivations for returns could also include push and pull factors: push factors that include prejudice, discrimination and inability to integrate due to negative attitudes. Pull factors include longing for “home” and the social network that is provided by “home”. Family related motivations involve being linked to “home” and have the pull factor of kinship and family ties. Finally, political motivations include the push factor of being forced to leave due to political agreements or the pull factor of political settlement in the country of origin. King (2000) argues that generally the economic motivations have less of an impact compared to the non-economic motivations, in a sense that push factors of the host country play less of a role while pull factors from the origin country have more importance in the decision making. An example similar to this is Manuh’s (2002) study which examined the return of Ghanaian migrants from Canada in which the importance of social connections was emphasized and identified as the main influencing factor of the return and movement patterns. These social connections include the ties they keep with their extended family network via calls, letters and home visits. They also utilize these networks to arrange marriages, acquire land and property which will facilitate their eventual return. When it comes to refugees, Eltnik (1999) argues in the case he studied of the return of refugees from the Netherlands that their willingness to return depends on their attachments to the host country. Additionally, the assistance still provided by the Dutch government to rejected asylum seekers was hindering them from choosing to return. Simmons (2000), however, stresses on the conditions of the home country more, in his view, establishing peace and democracy in the country of origin is essential for the choice of refugees to return. He also

recognizes the importance of having personal security and access to jobs and accommodation in the country of origin (Black et al., 2004).

2.2 Other Factors Impacting Return Decisions:

Bloch and Atfield (2002) conducted a study of 200 Somali refugees in the UK and found that the main issues that were hindering return were related to uncertainty about the future of Somali regions and the political problems surrounding the country as well as the higher standard of living in the UK. Moreover, when the organization Refugee Action conducted an evaluation of their project on voluntary return they found that the biggest motivation to return was family reunion amongst participants who requested assistance to return from the organization in 1998. Second to that factor were the conditions and situation in the country of origin while the third factor was “not being happy in the UK” (Morrison, 2000) On the same note, Al-Ali et al. (2001) have mentioned how even though economic and social issues in the country of origin were reasons for Bosnian and Eritrean refugees in Europe not to return, seeking a good education for their children was also a major factor impacting their decision to stay in the host country (Stein and Cuny, 1994).

Who decides to return is another element impacting return, it is important to mention that decisions to return are not only made by the “head of the household” for the family. As pointed out by Bloch and Atfield (2002), the process is far more complex and there are many layers that involve negotiations within families and communities. In their study, it was found that Somali men in the UK were the ones who wished to return compared to women. Likewise, in situations of rural-urban migration in Kenya (Agesa and Kim, 2001) and refugee returns from Mexico to Guatemala (Rousseau et al. 2001) the emphasis is on the notion of some members of the household returning without the rest of the family.

2.3 Return migration during conflict:

Stein and Cuny (1994) underline the importance of organizations and different parties working with refugees to understand the decisions of refugees and to react to it. They are thus skeptical of the approach taken by UNHCR on the issue of return, often leaning to the adoption of tripartite agreements, where the response is often slow, resulting in refugees often deciding to return on their own. According to Stein and Cuny (1994) there are two points to consider discussing the decision to return. The first one is that not all refugees are similar in their responses and a decision depends on

many factors like mobility, level of urbanization, gender, education and economic status. The second factor to consider is that refugees will behave differently depending on the time period of displacement. It is generally believed that at the beginning of their displacement, refugees will try to avert risks. However, years later a bigger initiative and risk-taking will be shown. Moreover, the decision making of refugees is seen as a rational choice amongst a group of unsatisfactory options. The actions of refugees have a reasoning behind them and we must understand them. Naturally, considering the refugees’ decision a purposeful choice does not mean that it is careful or fully conscious. It also may not be including all alternatives and might not be made with full awareness of the results and consequences. Decision making in general is a very complex act and people try to make it simple by relying on habit, instinct, some simple cues and trial and error (Ordeshook, 1986).

Stein and Cuny (1994) mention how the refugees are commonly seen as a powerless group. However, the decision to leave, stay or go back home is a choice and an action of their own. To cope with the consequences of their trauma, the stress and anxiety of being uprooted they may retain old behavioral patterns, revert to old institutions, cling to what’s familiar and return to their country of origin even if the conditions are not favorable.

2.4 Return Migration and Transnationalism:

Russell King (2000) defined return migration by elaborating on the work of Bovenkerk (1974) as a “process whereby people return to their country of place of origin after a significant period in another country or region.” It is however important to acknowledge the challenges of defining a term like “return migration” with all the migration processes around it and all the various layers the phenomenon encapsulates (Ammassari & Black, 2001).

Return migration as a phenomenon has always existed, however, research on it did not start until the 1980s when temporary migration schemes to Western Europe were coming to an end and European countries started showcasing an interest in encouraging migrants to return. Since then, return migration has expanded as a field of study. The reasons of return have received much attention by scholars, with the acknowledgment that return migration is difficult to theorize. As Massey et al. (1993) has concluded, no single theory is able to fully explain return (Batistella, 2018).

As discussed previously, voluntary return migration has emerged as the most desirable durable solution from three suggested by the UNHCR which include settlement in the country of refuge or resettlement in a third country. All of these options are difficult to achieve. However, voluntary return is viewed by governments, international organizations and many academics, as the ultimate solution (Rogge 1994, UNHCR 1980, 1987). The remaining two solutions are considered to be not applicable

or problematic. Even though refugees establish livelihoods in countries of refuge and are for the most part well integrated in the community, they are still viewed as refugees with no citizenship rights (Rogge, 1994). On the other hand, settlement in a third country has been limited due to strict immigration policies by wealthy nations that are able to receive refugees (Harrell-Bond, 1989).

As Cassarino (2004) stresses, in order to understand the debate around return migration it is important to understand that return migration had generally been discussed by scholars as a sub-component of their analytical approaches and overall as a subcategory of international migration. Hence, the specific field of return migration is undertheorized, especially when it comes to refugee return migration (Cassarino, 2004; Rogers, 1984) and much work still needs to be done with respect to creating relevant theoretical frameworks. Some of the most common theories dealing with return migration are derived from general migration theories and they do not specifically address return migration per se. They have been categorized by Cassarino (2004) according to different theoretical paradigms: neoclassical economics, the new economics of migration, structural approach, transnationalism and social network theory. Since the first three approached are not relevant to the context of refugee returns, this study will focus on the transnational approach (Kunuroglue et al. 2016).

Transnationalism as a term was conceptualized by a group of social scientists who examined the experiences of migrants in the US who kept their links to their home country through multi-layered social relations (Kearney, 1995; Schiller, Basch & Blanc-Szanton, 1992). The migrants were called trans-migrants since they had multiple connections and ties such as family ties, religious, economic and political ties that they developed and maintained with home as well as in the host country (Schiller et al., 1992). The transnational approach stresses that migration or return is not necessarily an end point. Instead, migrants develop complex identities not only through the links they have with their heritage and the host countries but also through being attached to each other by ethnicity, kinship or in-group solidarity (Kunuroglue et al. 2016). According to Alejandro Portes (Portes et al., 1999) the transnational activities are achieved via continuous social contacts overtime across borders. These regular contacts constitute one of the reasons for a desire to go back or visit. That is how, according to transnationalists, returnees prepare for reintegration and return home. Nadje Al-Ali and Khalid Koser (2002) present a very interesting vision of how migrants view the concept of “home” and “homeland”, as an essential notion of self-identification, where these play a crucial role in the decision to return because they provides a meaning with a social and historical background. Transnationalism puts an emphasis on the migrants and their communities at home having linkages that remain across borders and more importantly, in the field of return migration, it stresses that return happens when enough resources, which could be financial or informational, are available and when the conditions in the home country are viewed as acceptable (Cassarino, 2004).

Return visits to the country of origin constitute a specific transnational practice which in many ways interacts with the potential of return (Asiedu, 2005; Duval, 2004; King et al., 2013; Lulle, 2014; Mason, 2004; Oeppen, 2013). In various cases these short-term visits create a feeling of detachment from the community of origin and could awaken realizations of significant connections with the country of destination which would impact return desires negatively. However, in many cases short- term visits could constitute essential preparatory steps for eventual return (Carling & Erdal, 2014).

The transnational approach differs from the traditional migration theories which see emigration and return as permanent factors. Through understanding mobility as essential and normal, it also views migration in general as an ongoing process of a global mobility (King, 2000 p.44) so in that sense return is not a single ultimate goal, but a part of the migration process (Markowitz, Stefansson and Anteby-Yemini, 2004).

In reference to transnationalism and return migration another term has been used a lot more recently which is “diasporic return migration”. A diasporic return migrant is someone who lived away from their country of origin for a significant amount of time for reasons related to politics, economy, societal issues, cultural issues or various kinds of pressures, and returned to their homelands (Yijälä & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2010; Tsuda, 2009). Historically, “diaspora” as a term was used to describe the Jewish population. However, it now refers to much larger segments of migrants in migration studies. “Diaspora” since the mid-1980s and throughout the 1990s included groups such as migrant workers, refugees and asylum seekers (Daswani, 2013). According to Brubaker (2005) diaspora should have three main elements: dispersion, homeland orientation and boundary maintenance. More recently, as mentioned by Quayson & Daswani (2013), the terms “transnationalism” and “diaspora” have been used interchangeably (Kunuroglue et al. 2016).

2.5 Diaspora:

In the classical meaning of the term “diaspora”, the term refers to a population scattered due to being forced or due to traumatic historical events (Cohen, 1995). The term itself however is based on the Greek word “speiro”, to sow, and the preposition “dia”, over, which the Greeks used as a term for migration and colonization (Shuval, 2000).

William Safran (1991:83-4) has introduced six characteristics of a diaspora:

- They, or their ancestors, were displaced, most likely through tyranny and genocide, from a center or country of origin to two or more foreign places.

- They sustain a collective memory about their homeland, one that could be mythical.

- They think it is difficult to be fully accepted by the host country, which keeps them feeling disconnected or not affiliated with the host society.

- They see their home country as the “authentic”, “pure” homeland, one that they will eventually return to.

- They showcase a dedication to the restoration and development of their homeland back to safety, security and welfare.

- The group’s linkage and relationship with their homeland define their consciousness.

Cohen (1997), however, had a different approach to “diaspora” by widening the category to include different processes throughout history. His typology included: victim diasporas like the Jews and Armenians, labor diasporas like Indian indentured labor or Italians, imperial/colonial diasporas that include for example the British and Portuguese, trade diasporas like the Lebanese and Chinese and cultural diasporas for example the Caribbean (King & Christou, 2010). The debate around diasporas took a new turn with Anthias (1998) arguing for two main approaches to the notion of diaspora: the traditional approach which perceives diaspora as a “descriptive-analytical” group and mainly addresses specificity and criteria for inclusion (cf. Safran, 1991; Cohen, 1997) and the other ‘post- modern’ use of diaspora as a term is as a “socio-cultural condition” which corresponds to the categorization of Mavroudi (2007) of the theorization of diaspora to more of a bounded, home- oriented groups and identities or as unbound, fluid. Non-essentialised and nomadic identities (King & Christou, 2010).

If Roger Caratini’s (1986) “centrifugal minorities” term is applied on Diasporas the results would be that “homeland” is the center and the host country is the periphery. In another sense, if the Michael Bruneau’s (2001) “solar system” analogy was used then “homeland” is the sun and the many Diasporas revolve around it as part of its expanding constellation. But what happens if “the sun” is too far? How long can this memory last? Caratini referred to the Kurds, Corsicans, Basques and Chicanos, all of which have a complicated relationship with “homeland”. Robin Cohen (1995) also refers to Caribbean people in Europe as a “diaspora of a diaspora”, because of the uncertainty of location and the memory of home being too far in the past. However, with all the mentioned examples above, all have a perception of “home” whether it really exists or not. For example, there exists a collective Kurdish understanding and perception of “home” despite the uncertainty of where the current homeland is geographically (Safran, 2007).

2.6 Home, Place and Identity:

Home is a complex and ambiguous notion with a no overall consensus among scholars around its definition and nature. There has been a long practiced academic tradition of perceiving the borders of the country that the refugee/migrant migrated from as the perfect habitat for them, and it is what is considered normal by politicians and the international community (Appadurai 1988 in: Malkki 1995: 509). The place of origin is described as “home” or “homeland”, and it is assumed that the main desire of all migrants and displaced people is to return, and belong to it. Displaced people from their country of origin, the ones who are forced to leave, according to Ghorashi (2001) are considered homeless until they return “home”. The abovementioned notions are, however, static views on home and belonging. They are based on the territorialized notion of home. However, being “uprooted” and de-territorialized is becoming a normal notion while “home” is also becoming a more fluid notion. Nevertheless, being “uprooted” is still considered abnormal (Braakman, 2005). The longing for home creates a mythical image of the place that prompts return thoughts. What is known as the myth of return, Zetter (1999:6) however suggests replacing the myth of return with the term “the myth of home”, to stress that fact that what is being mythologized is “home” as the migrant recalls it, the place of origin with all of its compositions, and not the act of return per se. This means that when return happens people often are confronted with a very different place, not the “imaginary, mythical homeland” (Rushdie, 1991) which leaves the returnee with a sense of disappointment and disillusion, which could lead to being alienated from the homeland (Markowitz, Stefansson & Anteby-Yemini. 2004). Home as a concept, however, is extremely important in the majority of people’s lives. As a result, “home” has a significant influence in shaping up identity (Relph, 1976). Our attachment to places could be defined as feelings we develop towards places that are very familiar to us, places that we feel we belong to (Altman & low, 1992; Gifford, 2002). This is also known as the “place identity theory”, which describes aspects of identity being connected to a place. Place-identity is explained by Proshansky, Fabian and Kaminoff (1983) as the incorporation of aspects of a place into the notion of “self”. They define it as a “potpourri of memories, conceptions, interpretations, ideas and related feelings about specific physical settings, as well as types of settings” (1983, p.60). Place-identity is considered to be a core part of our identity like gender or social class, it is the way we perceive and comprehend our environment, these thoughts and perceptions could be divided into two types; the first is comprised of values, thoughts, memories, different settings and contexts and the second type would be the relationship various settings have with each other, meaning how e.g. home, school and, neighborhood, interact with each other (Proshansky & Fabian, 1987). These contexts on a larger scale would include city and country to look into the relationship of all the previously mentioned aspects (Hauge, 2007). Another aspect of place identity is affiliation, where people create a sense of home or attachment to one. This is where “self” is identified with a place which gives the feeling of being “at

home” or being in a comfort zone, in a setting that is familiar (Relph, 1976; Rowles, 1983; Seamon, 1979). Place-identity in a nutshell connects and affiliates the self with an important setting that brings a sense of order, belonging and comfort to the individual (Cuba & Hummon, 1993).

2.7 Four-Dimensional Analytical Framework Based on the debates presented above, the analytical framework for this study is a four-dimensional framework comprised of four approaches: push and pull factors, transnational theory of return migration, diaspora theory and place-identity theory.

The above-mentioned four-dimensional analytical framework will contribute to the analysis of the dynamics of Syrian refugees’ return to Syria for the following reasons: by looking into return migration from a transnational approach we can see that the actions done by migrants are viewed as the direct result of their sense of “belonging” to their community. Moreover, migrants’ perception of “homeland” and self -identification with it have direct influence on their decision to return (Cassarino, 2004). Different studies in relation to transnationalism showcase how notions of “belonging” and “homeland”, or belonging to the homeland, have a strong influence on where refugees choose to reside (Christou, 2006; King & Christou, 2014; Reynolds, 2008; Wessendorf, 2007).

Diaspora theory is linked to the transnational theoretical approach in a way that the diaspora reflects a sense of belonging and being part of a transnational network that has a “homeland” in the core of it. Tololian (1991) talks about Diasporas being the exemplary communities of the transnational moment, being a significant transnational practice. One of the main characteristics of diaspora is the sense of being in one place while always having the memory of another place, which is homeland, always longing and desiring to return “home” (Shuval, 2000).

The third dimension of the framework is in relation to the place-identity theory. However, this theory is being used as a heuristic starting point and not as an operational framework. This is due to the lack of empirical documentation to contribute to the validation of the theory and this could be due to the difficulty making the term operational. However, place-identity was used as a valid starting point by various scholars like Feldman (1990.1996) with the work on settlement identity and Lalli (1992) working on urban identity. The usage of the term and the various references to it prove the need for the concept but without the need of an operational they behind it, and hence this study will use place- identity as a heuristic starting point in support of the analytical framework (Hauge, 2007). Finally, the push and pull module as presented by King (2000) will be utilized. King’s module divides the motivations of return into four categories: economic, social, family and political motivations and analyzes the push and pull factor in each motivation. Refugee return is a complex issue because it involves many layers and factors, therefore this multidimensional framework will help analyze not only the pragmatic factors impacting returns but also the psychological layers of the decision to

return. Push and pull factors will bring in pragmatic reasons of return meanwhile the transnational approach, the diaspora theory and the place-identity theory would explain the different psychological layers of the decision to return. These four dimensions will work together in the following way; first the push and pull factor tool will dissect the various motivations of return, then the transnational and diaspora theories will examine the psychological push and pull factors and finally the place identity theory will be used as a heuristic starting point throughout the analysis,

3 Methodological Framework:

This chapter will present the methodology used in the study. The elements that will be discussed will include the research design, data collection and analysis, limitations, delimitations and ethical considerations that were made.

3.1 Research Design:

The research will follow a qualitative and abductive approach. A qualitative research as defined by John W. Creswell (2014, p.4) is an approach that explores and understands the meaning that individuals and groups attribute to a societal or human problem. This research will study the motivations behind Syrian refugees return to Syria despite the country not being safe or having the readiness to receive them by conducting a discourse analysis of interviews available on YouTube with them.

3.2 Data Collection and Analysis:

YouTube was chosen as the main source of data due to the significance it has when it comes to the Syrian revolution and the context surrounding it.

Fouad Ajami (2012) has described the Syrian civil war as “the first YouTube war”, referring to the events in relations to the Syrian uprising being brought to the world via YouTube (Orton,n.d.). YouTube played a detrimental role in documenting and mobilizing. Within a couple of years of the Syrian revolution, around 2 million videos were uploaded to YouTube about the revolt. YouTube took over the rest of social media platforms in terms of importance since videos uploaded on YouTube would be shared on Facebook and then referred to on Twitter. YouTube was so significant that the Syrian revolt was labeled as the “YouTube revolution” (Hinnebusch & Imady, 2018). Moreover, a

study by Xu & Maitland (2016) on communication behavior of refugees which was done in the Zaatari camp in Jordan shows the significance of YouTube as a source of information for Syrian refugees. According to the results of the study, YouTube is the third top source of information after Google and Facebook. Therefore, the study will rely on YouTube videos of interviews with refugees discussing return to Syria. Another reason for choosing YouTube is the videos being the closest the researcher could get to the refugees returning which is a main group in the study. It was impossible for the researcher to conduct the interviews personally. Furthermore, no academic studies on the return of Syrian refugees have been available to be used as a data source.

The videos were collected in two ways; the first one via search words on YouTube which include keywords like “Syrian refugee returns”. “Will Syrian refugees return?”, “interview with Syrian refugees about return” and other questions in line with the research. The second way of getting videos is through the recommendation sidebar of YouTube. Since the discussion regarding refugee returns is a recent one, the search for videos was filtered to videos from 2017 till May 2019.

A total of 35 videos were analyzed. The videos have been produced by TV stations or independent YouTubers discussing the issue of Syrian refugee returns. Some of the videos are of refugees being interviewed on their way to Syria or after crossing the border to Syria, while other videos are of Syrian refugees still in the countries of refuge being asked about their prospects of return. Videos were shot in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Germany. Videos differ in length but are between 2:00 minute videos to 10:00 minute videos each. All interviews were conducted in Arabic. This brings in a new perspective by Arabic speakers, since the examination of the videos was enabled by the researcher’s knowledge of the Arabic language. Considering the polarized political discourse on Syria the videos present various political points of view by the Syrian state TV and media outlets on the same political line or by the opposition affiliated TV stations and other independent media outlets, the researcher made sure the content of the video is well analyzed having the above political layers in mind.

3.3 Discourse Analysis

The research uses discourse analysis as a method of analysis based on Teun A. van Dijk’s (1985, 2011) proposed frameworks for analyzing discourse. As discourse is first and foremost a form of language use, it is natural that linguistic method of analysis will be used by looking into words, sentences and sentence structures. However, a linguistic method does not mean discussing grammatical functions only. It also refers to style and context. Analyzing discourse is also looking into various social interactions and explaining them. As van Dijk clearly states: “Utterances are not

just static verbal objects but ongoing dynamic accomplishments, that is, forms of action.” In spoken interactions analysis would also involve looking into nonverbal activities like tone, body language and facial expressions. This study will also follow a hermeneutic approach analyzing the texts looking into different levels beyond its literal meanings (van Dijk, 1985). Another aspect that this study will look into is the implicit meaning behind speech. Van Dijk (2011) describes discourse as an iceberg, in a sense that there is an explicit meaning we see through the words and sentences but also an implicit meaning that is most of the discourse.

A total of 37 videos were examined and various quotes were chosen to highlight general themes emerging from the videos. Only videos with interviews with refugees were selected and the interviews were considered the main source of data.

3.4 Limitations: Since this will be a desk study relying on data from YouTube videos, one of the limitations is finding enough interviews with refugees as they are the primary source of data for the research. Another limitation in relation to the data has to do with the videos being edited and cut by the video producers to present a report in a specific timeframe which might not reflect the full context of the conversation that occurred between the interviewer and the interviewee.

3.5 Delimitations:

The study is delimited to examining Arabic videos on YouTube that were published during 2017, 2018 and 2019 and include a refugee perspective, with interviews or any appearances of refugees discussing return to Syria. Videos from those specific years were chosen due to the debate around Syrian refugees’ returns being a recent debate and the wave of spontaneous returns peaking the past year (Nebehay, 2018; Reuters, 2018)

3.6 Ethical Considerations:

As the videos of interviews with refugees will be in Arabic, the researcher will translate the conversations and transcribe them. The ethical consideration here is related to translating the conversation accurately, without adding personal perspectives and making sure the conversations’ context and content is accurate.

Another consideration concerns details regarding refugees being interviewed. Many of the videos do not include information regarding the names, ages or whereabouts of the refugees being interviewed. However, when those details were available a choice was made to not include them and maintain the anonymity of the refugees due to the sensitivity of the topic and to avoid any harm that could be done.

4 Findings

In order to present the finding systematically they will be divided into two main groups. The first group consists of refugees on their way back to Syria being interviewed about their return. The second group consists of refugees being interviewed and asked about the prospect of their return. Each of this groups will include general themes that emerged from the interview which will be presented and discussed.

4.1 Syrians on their Way to Syria (Why Return?)

4.1.1 “Homeland is precious”:

“I am unable to describe the feelings of happiness” (V1)

“I cannot put a price on the feelings of joy I feel, I hope everyone returns to their country” (V2)

“We feel that we were born today because the sweetest things is when one returns to their homeland, nothing is more precious than the homeland in the entire world…” (V1.)

One of the main themes that emerged from the interviews talking to returning refugees was the pull factor of the emotional attachment to “home and homeland” and the above quotes from 3 different Syrian refugees returning to Syria from Jordan, illustrate that. The first two quotes are made by two older women discussing their feelings after returning. It is clear from the video that they are genuinely happy about returning and it is also clear that the interviewer was asking them to express feelings

regarding return. This is actually true for the third quote as well that was made by a middle aged man who referred thoroughly to the notion of “homeland”, describing his feelings once he stepped into Syria. The discussion in the videos however is generally an emotional one, addressing feelings of longing to home and the “warmth of being at home”.

Arabic is a very prolific language that is perfectly manifested in a word that describes emigration and that is used frequently by all the refugees being interviewed which is “ghurba”. “Ghurba” could be translated into “estrangement” which refers to being lonely and feeling like a stranger for being in an unfamiliar setting, in contrast with being in a familiar setting that is home. The following quotes are some examples of refugees referring to “ghurba” and relating it to their return:

“Thank god, yes we are happy to return. I hope everyone in “ghurba” in Lebanon in Jordan in Turkey to return to Syria, thank god it’s safe here and stability, and they received us so well” (V11)

“The best day. I have been here around 7 years in the “ghurba”. Now I am here, I have been thinking about this day every day. Thank god now it is safe and I am returning” (V10)

“I have been away in the “ghurba” for 6 years, there is nothing better than the homeland, your land, your home, your people, your government, your army …” (V5.)

The call of the woman returning to Syria from Lebanon in the first quote is very clear, addressing Syrians abroad who are going through what she went through with the feeling of being away from home and inviting people to return, however there is a notion of assuring Syrians of the safety in the country, which is also repeated in the second quote. No better place than home, after being estranged, is the main take out of these quotes.

Returning home is not only about returning to what is perceived as a safe and familiar place to the refugees, there is also recurring talk of returning to family and relatives back home. Many of the refugees had family members that were still in Syria and during interviews discussing return they always mention going back to the “homeland” and the family that was left behind, as we can see in the following quotes.

“We are returning back to our family, homeland and country” (V14)

“We are very happy and excited to get there so we could meet our family that is waiting for us” (V18)

“I am so happy to be back to my homeland, I hope soon all my family and other Syrians return back to Syria” (V14)

“We are returning because there is nothing better than returning to the homeland when one is reunited with his family…” (V12)

What all the above quotes confirm is the complexity of migration and its different layers. It is clear that refugees in this case have left behind family that they are still connected and linked to. These are the transnational connections that refugees have and maintain, and these are the networks that will facilitate their return or assist them when they go back. In the third quote the young man talking about hoping his family to return is an example of a return pattern where one member from the family returns to “test the waters” and see how the process goes in order to advise his family later on, another example of transnationalism that will keep this family interlinked and contribute in their preparation to return. To reaffirm these transnational links like we examine the following quotes.

“I tell people to return because thank god everything is ok. And according to the testimonies of people who returned, they said things are fine and thank god. I tell all young people to return to the homeland” (V9)

“Every month a family goes back to Syria, every month, every month … Thank god, I am not afraid” (V17)

These two quotes illustrate the way transnational links operate in facilitating and encouraging returns. In the first quote the young man returning from Lebanon talks about how people who returned previously recommended returning since everything was fine according to them. In the second quote the young man also returning from Lebanon talks about how the families returning every month were an encouragement for him to take the step and not be afraid. All of the above showcase how refugees remain in touch with family and friends, and this is a manifestation of how transnational links could contribute to returns.

4.1.2 Discrimination and Livelihood Issues

A second recurring theme that emerges from interviews with returning refugees is what could be considered as push factors, namely difficulties faced in the country of refuge which include discrimination and livelihood issues as the following two quotes illustrate.

“.... Hopefully, I think I will never in my life leave my country even if I will have to eat the soil of my country, because the bitterness of the “ghurba” … may God bless the Lebanese people …” (V6)

“….people who are abroad? My god give them wisdom so they return, they should return because the lap of the homeland is so precious and the soil is precious. It is enough the amount of humiliation and hardships we witnessed... I mean no one is happy to leave his home. In Lebanon what we went through... How things are expensive. No one likes us. The Syrian people are not loved outside of Syria, when we return to Syria we will be so happy” (V9)

The first quote by a middle-aged man discussing his emotions regarding his return home by referring to the bitterness of being away from home but also mentioning the difficulties he has endured in Lebanon. He expresses that by vowing to never leave Syria even if he has to eat the soil, meaning starve and have nothing to eat, then he sarcastically says “may God bless the Lebanese people”. The sarcastic tone is very evident in the video and it eludes to the troubles Syrian refugees face in Lebanon, not only in terms of finding resources but also in facing discrimination and xenophobia (Amnesty, 2018; Shebaya, 2017; Eldawy, 2019).

The second quote is by an older Syrian man returning from Lebanon as well. He addresses refugees who are still abroad, not returning to Syria by first appealing to the emotional value of home and the land but also grieving the difficulties he and many refugees endured in Lebanon with prices being expensive. He is clearly pointing out difficulties in sustaining proper livelihoods and by also pointing out the discrimination he faces, which is reflected by the phrase “no one likes us”. The man in clearly shaken by discussing the situation in Lebanon, which is felt from the tone and irritated facial expressions in the video. This is a clear indication of the hardships and the impact these issues have in effecting returns.

Another layer of these issues is illustrated by a woman returning from Lebanon as well.

“There were a lot of difficulties really, especially when it comes to education, and when it comes to livelihoods as well, it’s very difficult and a human being has no dignity outside of their country until they return to their country and homeland. I advise everyone who is in “ghorba” to return to their country to rebuild it and have a new life.” (V13)

The woman in the above quote is a mother as she is seen in the video carrying her child. Her tone is also agitated and the grievance could be sensed in her voice when she discusses the difficulties in finding proper education for her child and also having a good and dignified livelihood. It clearly has been a period of undignified living and hence return was seen as an option to be back “home” and be protected and dignified again.

More of these sentiments were expressed by refugees discussed their living conditions in tents and the overall misery they enduring as expressed by the quotes below

“Life in a tent is very difficult, it’s a tragedy… nothing compares to my homeland” (V1.)

“The situation living in a tent was very bad ... very bad… I can’t even describe it” (V2)

These quotes are from two different men returning from Jordan being interviewed about their return, and here they discuss how difficult it was to live in a tent, which is something humiliating especially if it lasts for a long time which in the case of these Syrian refugees was between 5 to 6 years.

4.1.3 Amnesty as a Pull Factor for Young Men

According to the Syrian constitution, all men between the ages of 18 and 42 who are not the single male child to their parents are required to serve in the Syrian army. Under the military law, men who escape military conscription face fines, imprisonment and forced conscription (refworld, 2014).

However, Syrian government in October 2018 announced an amnesty for men who escaped military service or deserted the army (Reuters, 2018).

The amnesty issued by the government is one of the recurring mentioned reasons to return of young men and some of the following quotes address that.

“Thank god we returned to our homeland, I have military conscription and thank god the president issued the amnesty, so I have returned” (V2.)

“I have two kids who have reached the age of conscription, we came back to take advantage of the amnesty and let my boys join the military, it’s better to take advantage of the amnesty so they are not considered escapees... thank God things are calmer now and hopefully things will be better” (V20)

“We were encouraged by the amnesty to return and serve in the army” (V5.)

“I am returning to serve in the army after the amnesty issued by the president” (V7)

The first quote is by a Syrian young man who is returning from Jordan and he discusses how the amnesty that was issued played a role in his decision to return, especially that war has stopped in some areas and there is some stability in certain parts of the country. A similar sentiment was expressed by the man in the second quote returning with his two boys who are in the age of conscription and he want to take advantage of the amnesty in order to return considering things are “calmer” according to him. The last two quotes are also by two men returning from Lebanon expressing feelings of relief by the amnesty and how it was a factor which pulled them towards return to Syria.

4.2 Syrians Abroad Discussing Return (Would You Return?)

The data of the second group of refugees will be presented in this part in relation to refugees outside Syria who are not on their way to return being asked about their prospects of return. The answers are

divided into three main themes: refugees who said they would return to Syria, refugees who had a condition to return and refugees that refuse to return to Syria.

4.2.1 Refugees Who Would Return

4.2.1.1 “My Country, My Family!”

Refugees being asked about return in the videos mention that return to their country is inevitable. From the videos we can see the emotional take on the topic since for many refugees the topic of their country is still also related to home and homeland. Below are some of the quotes that reflect this sentiment:

“It’s my country! Of course I will return to my country! How can you ask me if I will return to my country?” (V28)

“Of course I will return. Syria is my homeland, my land is there, my family is there, and everything is there. Hopefully things will calm down and we will return to our homeland” (V28)

“If you can’t go and do good to your country you can’t do good to Turkey or any other country. I am ready to go with the destruction… I would live in a tent but at least it’s in my country. No one would give their country up” (V28)

“I would love to return! No matter how good things are in “ghorba” it is still “ghorba”. The homeland is different… “Ghorba” is very difficult” (V28)

The first quote is by a Syrian boy around the age of 10 in Turkey who seems visibly upset by the question. The question itself is so absurd to him that he questions the question. That is a clear indication of the attachment to the homeland that is still nurtured by Syrians abroad through instilling those feelings in the family and passing it to the younger generation.

The second quote is by a Syrian man in Turkey who refers to the notion of “homeland” and the attachment he has to it, not only through feelings but also through transnational networks of family and land. Meanwhile the third quote reflects not only attachment to home but also feelings of alienation and the impact it could have on refugees. Living in a tent is a humiliating concept and is mentioned by Syrians many times as reference to the difficulties of being a refugee. Thus, the expression used by the man in the third quote is very significant when he says that he prefers a life in a tent in his homeland to being a refugee.

In the fourth quote we see a theme that emerged again which was the notion of estrangement or “ghorba” in Arabic. It appears in this quote by a Syrian man in Iraq who enthusiastically expresses his desire to return with contrasting thoughts of having it good abroad but having to struggle with “ghorba” being away from home, family and land.

Similar feelings were expressed by refugees in Germany regarding family connections and attachment to homeland as we can see from the following quotes

“Of course I will return … My parents are there and I have no one there” (V35)

“It’s true that I am in a camp but even if I was in an apartment outside I would still return to my home. Because that land is my land, no matter how much we integrate here this is still not our land” (V30)

“We are always longing for Syria, it’s our first and final destination” (V29)

The above quotes are all from refugees in Germany being interviewed and asked about their return prospects. As demonstrated by the quotes it is clear the role transnational networks play in maintaining sentiments of longing. This is especially evident in the first quote in which the young Syrian man confidently and with a loud tone says “of course”, indicating firmness. There is however another aspect in his answer which refers to him not having anyone in Germany, which goes back to the idea of loneliness and estrangement or “ghorba”.

The second quote is by a woman carrying her baby in her room in a camp in Berlin. The discussion about return could be overshadowed by her not being able to find an apartment to move to and when

she is asked about return and the prospect of return if she finds an apartment outside she confirms her return referring to Syria as her land.

The third quote by a young Syrian woman is very interesting because it talks about two important notions. Firstly, the longing for Syria, the home, the land. Secondly, that Syria is the final destination. The word “destination” indicates that her journey is ongoing, and that Germany might be a stop for now, but it is not the “final destination”.

4.2.2 “Yes ... If ... “

When asked about prospects of return, many refugees expressed desire to return while others were clear that returning is not an option at the moment. A third group would consistently answer “Yes… If ...” There would always be a “Yes” followed with a pause and then “if….” and a condition. The condition amongst all the refugees interviewed is the same: “If things return to how they were before”. Here are some quotes to illustrate those notions

“If things get better and the situation is just like it was before… of course I will return” (V33)

“No one can forget their country, if things return like they were before I will definitely return! I’d rather be in my country” (V28)

“Now, of course… If Syria returns to how it used to be before and how we used to live in it before, sure! Why not!” (V27)

The above quotes are examples of some of the references to returning to the perfect Syria that is in the refugees’ mind and memories. All three quotes have the same sentiments, confidence and certainty when it comes to return y but at one point a conditionality; return to Syria the way it was before. It is also evident that the Syria that was before was a positive one, one that is the ultimate desire is to return to.

4.2.3 No Return

The third main theme when it comes to refugees’ answers is refugees’ refusal to return for various reasons which could be categorized into four main categories: Refusing due to no guarantees of safety and security, refusing to return due to destruction of home and not having family left behind, refusing to return due to starting a new life, refusing permanent return and preferring short visits.

4.2.3.1 No Guarantees of Safety and Security

One of the main reasons mentioned by most of the refugees who refused to return is not trusting the government and various warring parties when it comes to safety and security and the feeling that there could be no guarantees when it comes to keeping stability and safety.

When discussing return, a middle-aged man in Turkey put it this way:

“Never return … (reporter: why?) ... Because there are some experiences of some cities being calm and stable and there was no war in them but there was no safety because there was no central government present there… And most people are complaining of lack of security and safety... And safety is the main factor for stability which will encourage us to return. I would hope for that to happen as soon as possible, but it doesn’t look like it” (V28)

When asked the question a visible change of the man facial expression could be seen and a look of worry with a burdened smile was donned. After laying out the issues regarding safety and security that are worrying him, a genuine wish was expressed of safety to prevail. This was however quickly followed by a pessimistic reflection on the unlikeliness of safety prevailing.

Another young man residing in Germany did not give a straight yes or no answer when asked about return. However, after laying out all the effort he has been putting on establishing life in Germany he describes his feeling about return in the following way:

“After everything you did here… you came and at the end they tell you to go back to a safe zone.. Which is impossible to prove to you that you will be 100% safe there, which means you will lose everything you did ….” (V35)

It is clear in the video from the tone, body language and facial expression of the young man that he has gone through a lot to start a new life in Germany. He focuses on the aspect of returning to a “safe zone” and describes it as impossible to “prove” or guarantee as safe.

Many expressed mistrust in the government as well when it comes to guaranteeing safety as we can see in the following quotes:

“There is no way I go back to Syria, for many reasons; the first reason is that there is still no security and safety in Syria… militarily I mean … but also when it comes to the trust between us and the government or the regime it is non-existent because our regime is famous for not honoring promises. Maybe they will allow us in at first but after a while maybe they will bring us and seek vengeance... This is not only about now, we know this regime from years before these events, and we have heard from our families how they treated people from the 80s and how they went for revenge after…” (V25)

The middle-aged man who is seeking refuge in Jordan discusses here the issue of mistrust in the government, which was mentioned by many of the refugees, and brings forward an important point in regard to the history of Syria and the relation of the current Syrian government with it. During the 1980s there were uprisings and riots organized by different Muslim groups in Aleppo, Homs and Hama. The uprisings were being led in particular by the Muslim Brotherhood that was trying to get to the power in Syria. The uprisings were further fueled by the practices of the Alawite minority rule led by Hafez Al Assad, the father of the current president, against the country’s majority Sunni Muslim population. One event that is stuck to the memory of all Syrians is the Hama Massacre of 1982 which killed tens of thousands of people and destroyed the city of Hama (BBC, 2019; Rodrigues, 2011; Wimmen, 2016). The man is referring to acts of revenge against protests that occurred after the riots, hence feelings of mistrust in the Syrian government, which is ruled by the son of the president who ordered those massacres.

4.2.3.2 Nothing to Return for

When refusing to return to Syria a second main theme that emerged from the interviews with the refugees was the notion of not having a family, a home or any belongings to return for. We can see that in the following quotes

“I don’t think I will return, because after all the war and the destruction and the explosions that happened, there is nothing left, no jobs no nothing, where would I return to? I don’t want to return and neither does my family …” (V28)

“Are you going to return to Syria? What do you have left in Syria? Nothing! No home, no shops, no cars, no nothing... We have nothing left” (V27)

“They destroyed our homes, they destroyed our places… Where do we go back? We have no place to go back to.” (V27)

In the first quote the young Syrian refugee in Germany reacts in a tense manner to the question about return, especially when he discusses the war and the destruction that was caused by the war. The feelings of anger and despair are sensed through his answer. On the other hand, a young man seeking refuge in Turkey diverts the question to the reporter through asking rhetorical questions to reflect the severity of the situation of having nothing to return to, of losing home and other places and belongings with significant importance. Finally, an older woman in Turkey laments losing her home and having nothing to return to and bewails the impact of war on her life, which resulted in the destruction of her home.

4.2.3.3 New Life and Opportunities

For many refugees, leaving Syria was a very difficult decision to make, there was a lot of resources that was put into leaving, material resources and psychological ones as well. After all the investment in leaving, starting a new life and finding new opportunities, many of the Syrian refugees refuse to

return to Syria to start over or maybe not even be able to find the same opportunities they have found in their countries of refuge. The following quotes are some examples of those sentiments:

“Coming to Germany was very difficult in the first place, so we are here now, we were able to learn, we were able to adapt, we learned the language, we integrated with the people, this means a lot to us. So… leaving everything and simply to go back I think is difficult” (V35)

“No, because I would have established my life here and I would maybe work in a field that does not exist in Syria, like I wasted my time here and I won't repeat …” (V35)

“When it comes to young people, we won’t return especially after starting new universities and a new life here” (V28)

The first quotes come from a young Syrian man discussing how he has started his new life in Germany. He puts in his ideas passionately, especially when discussing all the work he has been putting into learning the language and integrating. He clearly puts a great value in it by expressing how much it means to him. After putting all those efforts, return is simply not an option for him.

The young girl in the second quote is also in Germany. She similarly addresses establishing a new life path and dedicating a lot of time and effort into something that she might not be able to continue in Syria. The notion of doing it all over again in Syria after return is visibly making her upset as she clearly states that she “won’t repeat”.

Finally, the third quote by a young man in Iraq discusses the same notion of the hard work that goes into starting the education process all over again and finding a new network and life, which will be impossible to leave behind.

4.2.3.4 Short Visits

The final main theme that was discussed by a lot of the refugees being interviewed was refusing to return permanently, but rather return to visit family, friends and homes or places after a while when things have “calmed down”. These sentiments are evident in the following quotes:

“Of course I won’t leave everything and go back. I would have started things here, I will have friends and work which I won’t leave, so maybe I would go back to visit my family, my friends and the places that I miss” (V29)

“.... I think everyone has the right to visit their country, their home, their neighborhood where they were raised, their culture … so it helps you balance your life here … (V29)

“ When we left Syria we had to think hard about the decision and now we are here, my children have learnt one of the most difficult languages, It would be so wrong to my children if I decide to return to Syria… The situation there is an enigma, and I really wish that my children had a future there but we are here, starting a new life …. If one day I think of returning it would be for a short visit only” (V29)

All of the above quotes share the overall notion that refers to the previous theme of starting a new life and the efforts that go into it, having that in mind all three recognize that they will not be able to leave considering the new life they are starting in Germany. The young man in the first quotes mentions returning to visit openly. He talks about the difficulty of being“re-rooted” somewhere else, having a network of friends and work in a place, with remaining emotions for home. He expresses that there is longing but that the effort having been made into starting a new life prevails when it comes to the importance of securing the future. However, return could be an option with short visits only. This could, according to the transnational theory, lead to an eventual return in the long run.

The young woman in the second quote was asked whether she would return to Syria. At first she enthusiastically talks about her being amongst the first to return, but when asked to elaborate she changes her tone and focuses more on returning to visit, which was what she had in mind when answering about return.

The third quote comes from a mother who is clearly emotionally moved by the conversation. This is evident from the tone of her voice and the body language when she discusses the decision to leave, but adds another layer to her answer as a mother. She feels responsible for uprooting her children from Syria and now that they are starting a new life in Germany she feels it would be wrong for her to move back to Syria with her children... After laying her situation out and grieving the unclear situation in Syria when it comes to peace or settlement, she makes the case of one day returning to Syria for a visit, acknowledging that her life is in Germany now with her children.

An important aspect in all of the discussion around short visits is important to mention. All ideas of short visits come from young people in Germany or involve them, like the case of the mother and her

children. This could be due to the opportunities available in Germany like residency permits, higher living standards and health care, compared to other host countries in the videos which include Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.

5 Analysis & Discussion

The analysis of the findings of the study will utilize the four-dimensional analytical framework that was designed by using four approaches. Firstly, the push and pull factors in regard to the return of Syrian refugees will be examined. Secondly, the data will be examined through the prism of Transnationalism and Diaspora theory. Lastly, the place-identity theory will be used as an overall starting point for the analysis.

The figure below summarizes the findings regarding the return of Syrian refugees and also highlights some important elements that could be discussed.

(Figure 1.)

The notion of “home” and “homeland” was dominant in the discourses of Syrians interviewed in the videos. The most references made amongst refugees were to the words “home” or “homeland”. It was identified as one of the main reasons to return. Why is this? Many refugees when being asked about return talked about the their land, their home and their family, the embodiment of all of these notions to them is represented in the “homeland” and the attachment to it which echoes Nadje Al-Ali and Khalid Koser’s (2002) vision of how refugees view “home” as an essential notion of self- identification. Therefore the decision to return is strongly impacted by it, because “home” in this context provides a meaning with social and historical background as the place they were born in and the place where they grew up with all that this represents. Home from the point of view of place- identity theory is finding “self” in the place, it is the linkage between memories, concepts and ideas on the one hand with the apartment, neighborhood, city and country on the other hand. The joy and relief that was expressed by refugees when returning could be seen as being planted again after being “uprooted”. Many refugees used phrases like “being born again”, “relief”, “very happy” or “I can’t describe my feelings” when asked about their return to Syria. This could be linked to the perceived identity being restored and the feelings of relief due to being in a place that provides comfort, balance and familiarity in comparison to the frequently used Arabic word “Ghorba”.

“Ghorba” in Arabic as translated previously means estrangement or loneliness. It was a word frequently used by refugees to discuss hardships, negative sentiments attached to being away and to reasons to return. An opposing term to “ghorba” is familiarity or being in a familiar surroundings. This refers to family, friends and other networks in familiar places. These are networks that the refugees were uprooted from. Maintaining these linkages refers to the notion of transnationalism. Alejandro Portes (Portes et al., 1999) discusses how transnational activities are achieved with constant social contact overtime and across borders. He refers to these contacts as one of the reasons to return. These contacts were presented in the findings of the study as one of the refugees being interviewed mentioned their family members waiting for them across the border, or when another refugee talked about testimonies of people who returned which encouraged him and when a young man confidently mentions families returning every month. All of the previous examples indicate a regular contact is maintained between refugees and their families in Syria. Naturally, in the current age of digital communication and the opportunities that it provides, it is easy to maintain contact across borders.

Is it possible to label the Syrian refugees as a Syrian diaspora? The classic definition on the term is related to populations scattered around the world due to being forced or due to traumatic historical events (Cohen, 1995). There have been many discussions about the term. Avoiding a descriptive

analysis of diaspora, but instead turning to the notion of “diaspora” from a post-modern point of view, we see that the use of the term refers to a socio-cultural condition as discussed by Anthias (1998). This corresponds to how Mavroudi (2007) defines “diaspora” as bounded and home-oriented groups or as fluid, non-essentialised and nomadic identities (King & Christou, 2010). The above description illustrates how Syrian refugees could be labeled as a “diaspora” considering their nature of being scattered due to forced and traumatic historical events. Additionally, viewing Syrian refugees through Mavroudi’s (2007) perspective, the Syrians that were interviewed could be categorized within both the bounded and fluid categories of diaspora and that is due to the results in the findings when it comes to Syrians willing to stay for new opportunities and accept a new “home”, hence the notion of fluidity, and also on the other hand another group of Syrians who are bounded towards “home”; Syria.

Diaspora in referred to by Tololian (1991) as the pinnacle of the transnational moment. This is due to the way diaspora reflects the sense of belonging and being part of the transnational network that has “homeland” in the core of it. Furthermore, if we examine one of the main characteristics of diaspora according to Shuval (2000) we will see that it embodies feelings of being in one place while constantly longing and desiring to return to another place which is “home”. This is true regarding many of the Syrians being interviewed. The young Syrian man mentioning about “home” that he is “thinking about this day everyday”, demonstrates a clear sense of the characterization of Shuval. These emotional ties to the homeland coupled with different push and pull factors that were mentioned in the findings are major contributors to the current return flows of Syrian refugees returning to Syria and could be the driving force for future return movements. Looking into the Syrian refugees as a group through the diaspora theoretical lens would explain future involvement in Syria, whether it is political involvement by impacting political decision with votes or by economic involvement through investments and other ventures, in addition to their participation in the rebuilding process of Syria.

Looking into the return flows through King’s (2000) motivations summary for spontaneous return we can see that many of the push and pull factors identified in the interviews would fit in perfectly with King’s categorization. As an economic factor we can see the livelihood issues suffered by refugees as an economic push factor and the discrimination as a social push factor. Family related motivations that were described by Syrian refugees include the pull factor of longing to return “home”. Meanwhile there are the political motivations which are impacting the return of Syrians which include the pull factor of the amnesty by the Syrian government. The same categorization could be applied on Syrians that answered negatively to the question of return; as a main hinder to return comes the political motivations which includes not trusting that government or not having a guaranteed safety and

security which could be seen as a push factor, pushing refugees away from “home”. While the economic motivations not to return would include the push factor of having lost property and all belongings and the pull factor of having new opportunities when it comes to work and education pulling them towards settlement in the country of refuge. The sense of loss could also be seen as a family related and social motivation no to return since loss is also regarding family, friends and other social networks.

One of the frequent answers when it comes to not returning was “having nothing to return for” or having “no one to return to”. These two phrases describe a very significant notion which is the sense of loss. It refers to losing what refugees though to be valuable and significant part of their lives which is home. Home in the sense of family, place, memories, perceptions and ideas that form it is also the identity that was lost. That loss of home and consequently identity causes grief and disappointment which prompts the action of not returning.

On a similar note, refugees mentioned the issue of dignity frequently, having a dignified life or being in a dignified place. When talking about their living conditions there was always a mention of “living in a tent” which has a very significant meaning referring to a life of no dignity. For the refugees, a tent is the equivalent of having no protection and dignity. In contrast, home provides protection and dignity. Hence longing for home is also longing for a lost sense of protection and dignity. Moreover, the discrimination faced by many of the refugees in the countries of refuge presents another image of losing dignity and protection. The discrimination alienates refugees and makes them long for home even more, home where things are familiar and no feelings of being a burden or alienated exist. As one woman said “this is not our land” talking about being integrated or feeling part of the place of refuge, she clearly states how a sense of belonging to the country of refuge is difficult to feel, which is essentially a result of feeling alienated or unprotected. The importance of belonging to the land was best highlighted when a Syrian man said the following: “I am ready to go with the destruction… I would live in a tent but at least it is in my country ….” The tent is mentioned again but here in a contrasting sense to highlight how important the feeling of being in what is perceived to be the homeland. A tent abroad is a sign of humiliation while a tent on the homeland, with the destruction around, is still a more favored option since it addresses the emotional ties and need of protection and dignity.

Looking back at figure 1 above, we notice a third group of refugees who answered affirmatively to the question of return but had one condition; return to Syria the way it used to be before. It is clear from the findings that many of the refugees have feelings of longing to Syria and what was once home and still is to many. Being uprooted from home is not a normal phenomenon as discussed by

Braakman (2005) and it leaves the refugee traumatized and sometimes hinders the reestablishment of a new life in a new place. One of the consequences of this is having an image of Syria that is positive and almost mythical in the minds of refugees. This corresponds with ideas expressed by Zetter (1999:6), who mentions how refugees mythologize “home” the way they recall it; the place of origin where all memories and important places are. Some refugees being interviewed also expressed things such as: “….if things return like they were before I will definitely return! I’d rather be in my country”; “If things get better and the situation is just like it was before ... of course I will return”. These two sentences describe the exact notion of the “myth of homeland”. These nostalgic images and the perception of home as the perfect place prompts possible return but in this case it represents a sense of conditionality. However, “home” as these refugees knew it does not exist anymore. Rushdi (1991) stresses the idea of the “imaginary, mythical homeland” not existing anymore, which is something refugees will be confronted by. Social construct that once existed does not exist anymore, many of the architectural memories will change since neighborhoods will not look the same due to destruction or they might even not exist anymore. All of these factor will result in a sense of disappointment and disillusion when return happens, which could lead to the process of re-migration to seek a different home which was highlighted in figure 1 through the orange arrows showcasing the return patter that could shift towards no return.

One final theme in figure 1 that was highlighted is short visits to Syria. As mentioned in the section discussing return migration return visits to the country of origin is a specific transnational practice which in many ways interacts with the potential of return (Asiedu, 2005; Duval, 2004; King et al., 2013; Lulle,2014; Mason, 2004; Oeppen, 2013). This notion was expressed mainly by refugees in Germany which could be also linked to the opportunities they are able to get to have a new start. The general sentiment expresses attachment to home but refugees also acknowledge that their move to their country will not happen right now as they or their children are building a new life. Many refugees are investing time and energy in learning the language, adapting to the culture and assimilating and for many of them it is difficult to see a scenario where they leave their new life behind to return permanently. Nevertheless refugees still feel an emotional attachment to the “homeland” and there are still family and kinship ties to maintain, so many refugees discussed the possibility of returning for a short visit to see familiar places and meet family and friends. These are the type of visits Carling and Erdal (2014) discussed saying how these visits could have two results; they could either be an essential step into preparing refugees for eventual return by strengthening family ties, buying property or arranging marriages like the example given by Manuh (2002) in relation to Ghanaians in Toronto. Or these short visits might create a feeling of detachment from the community of origin and might showcase how the individual’s belonging is shifted and the feelings of connection with the country of refuge might be awakened which will have a negative impact on

return. Figure 1 demonstrates this by showing with the orange arrows the pattern that could take place with short visits.

In light of the above analysis of the findings there are various discussion points that arise.

The international community has decided that the best durable solution for the Syrian refugee crisis would ultimately be for refugees to return to Syria, assuming that once “uprooted” the best solution would be for refugees to return to their roots again. However, considering the Syrian context and how unsafe Syria still is for the majority of the population, would return be the best option? Safety does not only encompass physical safety, but also encompasses having proper housing conditions, social structure to contain returning refugees, dignified livelihoods that provide a decent living standard and the protection of human rights. Is Syria essentially able to provide returning refugees with that kind of safety?

On the other hand, there are serious issues when it comes to discrimination and xenophobia faced by refugees. Many are subjected to a different kind of violence in the countries of refuge. When refugees feel pressured and alienated in their countries of refuge and they decide to return to what is familiar and perceived as home, what would stop them? Knowing the risks of return to Syria, refugees are nevertheless sometimes forced to make a decision of return, even when it might not be in their interest.

As we could see from the findings of the study there are many voices and different opinions within refugees. Not all refugees have the same answers, thoughts, feelings about return and circumstances. Therefore, addressing “refugees” by referral to a homogenous group is counterproductive. Naturally, it is a difficult task to always address the various problems of the different groups within a refugee community. However, it is important to consider these notions when planning for return or programmes of assisted return. Not the least because the case of assisted return programmes designed by the UNHCR, international and national bodies in Angola, Afghanistan, Liberia, South Sudan and Iraq have sometimes unintentionally spurred “spontaneous” return movements.

The discussion around refugee returns also requires some thoughts around the two other durable solutions identified by UNHCR, namely settlement in the country of refuge or resettlement in a third country. As discussed above in the section on return migration and transnationalism, these two solutions are seen as problematic mainly by governments and certain segments of the populations in the countries of settlement or resettlement. When it comes to Syrian refugees, they face discrimination in Lebanon and financial challenges in Jordan and Turkey. Refugees in Europe also face pressure to integrate with expectations of them learning the language, adjust to a different lifestyle and to “move

on”. Considering the importance of “home” and the difficulties to cope with the feelings of loss, disappointment and grief, is it time for the international community to reconsider the approach towards integration. Many groups of refugees will try to recreate home away from home, especially with feelings of longing to the homeland, a desire to return and affection to various elements of home. They are likely to create communities that remind them of home, which is subsequently considered problematic by various political parties and groups in the country of refuge.

Keanu Reeves when discussing his new film in an interview with The Guardian talks about the main character, John Wick’s, sadness and grief, he relates it to the tragedies of his life losing his wife and daughter in a car accident and he says “... I don’t think you ever work through it. Grief and loss, those are things that don’t ever go away. They stay with you.” This speaks volumes in relation to feelings of loss and grief that refugees carry everywhere and anywhere they go, which are elements to be considered when discussing integration.

Discussing Syrian refugee returns is a complex issue not when it comes to the return patterns or reasons to return or not return. It is a complex issue politically, socially and morally. Regardless of all political and social discussions, the international community has a moral obligation when it comes to all refugees which was highlighted in the UNHCR Conclusion 19 (1980) and 40 (1985) of the UNHCR’s Executive Committee regarding preconditions of return which are four main points:

- Fundamentally changed circumstances with the cause of refugee movement being removed.

- Decision to return has to be completely voluntary (“freely expressed wish”).

- Tripartite agreements in place with country of origin, host country and the UNHCR which would provide formal guarantees of security of return.

- Return to be conducted in a safe and dignified manner with no threats to the returnees’ security. (Stein and Cuny, 1994).

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, this study examined the reasons of Syrian refugees’ return to Syria with conditions in Syria being unsafe and despite UNHCR recommendations against return and return conditions not being met. The study used discourse analysis as a method and YouTube interviews of refugees

returning to Syria or discussing return to Syria as a primary source of data. The questions the study tried to answer were the following:

- Why are Syrian refugees returning to Syria considering the unsafe conditions in Syria?

- Would Syrian refugees return to Syria if safe conditions were achieved in Syria?

The study tries to apply new theoretical lenses examining refugee return migration by using a four- dimensional analytical framework to examine the data. This framework is comprised of place- identity theory as a starting heuristic point, transnational and diaspora theory in addition to push and pull factor utilization.

Regarding Syrian refugees returning to Syria our findings showed transnational links explaining return to Syria under unsafe conditions. Those transnational linkages include attachment to homeland and family and kinship back in Syria which coupled with the push factors that were discussed regarding discrimination and livelihoods issues in host countries are the leading factors to return. Regarding many of the young men returning those above elements were also a factor. Another pull factor identified was the amnesty issued by the government regarding escapees of military conscription.

On the other hand, when Syrian refugees in countries of refuge were asked about their prospects of return with safe conditions in Syria, a major theme raised was their attachment to the homeland and how that would be a reason to return to Syria. The attachment to the homeland includes the transnational links with family and social networks back home in addition to the attachment to the place.

Conditional return was a prevalent theme expressed by many Syrians who wish to return to Syria if it is restored to what it used to be. This was a reference to the mythical and positive image refugees have of Syria. However, this image of Syria will probably lead to a disappointment as the many cases of return were discussed before.

Another section of the findings in relation to returning was expressed by refugees who established or were establishing new lives in their countries of refuge that discussed the possibility of short visits once Syria is safe to return to. These short visits are another transnational practice that could lead to an eventual return or could connect the refugees to their “new homes”.

A final group of refugees expressed no desire to return and that was for three main reasons. The first reason was regarding starting a new life in a new country, with all the new opportunities they could have and all the resources they have put into leaving and starting their new lives, many refugees were not willing to return mainly because they might not have the same opportunities they are having in

their host country. It is important to mention that the majority discussing this notion were young Syrians.

The second reason for not returning has to do with having no guarantees of safety and security in Syria. Here transnational links against play an important role, as refugees communicate with returnees and are informed of security issues. Another aspect is also having no trust in the Syrian government and any promises of safety by it.

The third and final reason has to do with the sense of loss and grief many refugees expressed regarding having nothing to return for. Losing homes, family members and friends who are not in Syria anymore was an element many Syrians lamented.

The analysis of the findings showcases how the Syrian refugees could be described as a diaspora which would explain the orientation towards home and homeland. Diaspora is defined as populations dispersed due to political or social factors whose orientation revolves around home and the homeland. Similarly, the majority of the Syrians interviewed expressed attachments to Syria as their homeland. As a transnational practice, diaspora maintains links with family and friends in the home country and these links could contribute to an eventual return.

Looking into the overall findings and analysis, the point argued by King (2000) that generally the economic motivations have less of an impact compared to the non-economic motivations can be confirmed. This is true in the sense that push factors of the host country play less of a role compared to pull factors from the country of origin, which have more importance in the decision making. This was confirmed by the majority of answers by the Syrians interviewed, which related to their attachment to the homeland, the emotional ties to the country and the social networks in it, in addition to the pull factor of the amnesty issued by the Syrian government which played a role in the return of young men. This is an important point to consider by the international community in its pursuit of securing safe and dignified return of Syrian refugees making sure that conditions in Syria are safe for refugees to return and ensuring guarantees of their safety and security once they return. By highlighting the role of country of origin pull factors including psychological factors like the attachment to “homelands” this study could be used to advocate for various interventions with country of origin to make sure that these pull factors are not being used to lure refugees to create the illusion of peace, in light of this study international organizations working with refugees could start focusing more on the psychological elements impacting refugees and prompting unsafe returns. Another notion this thesis addresses is reasons for refugees not to return, which the international community could utilize in order to find solutions to what would hinder refugee returns in Syria and other refugee crises.

References:

Agesa, R. and Kim, S., 2001. Rural to Urban Migration as a Household Decision: Evidence from Kenya Review of Development Economics, 5(1), 60-75.

Ajami, F., 2012. The Rescue [online]. Hoover Institute. Accessed May 12, 2019, from

https://www.hoover.org/research/rescue

Akgündüz, Y., van den Berg, M. and Hassink, W.H.J., 2015. The Impact of Refugee Crises on Host Labor Markets: The Case of the Syrian Refugee Crisis in Turkey. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8841. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2564974

Al-Ali, N., Black, R., and Koser, K., 2001. Refugees and transnationalism: the experience of Bosnians and Eritreans in Europe Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(4), 615-34.

Al-Ali, N., Koser. K. eds., 2002. New Approaches to Migration? Transnational Communities and the Transformation of Home. London. Routledge.

Al Jazeera, 2018. Syria’s civil war explained from the beginning [online]. April 14. Accessed May 22, 2019, from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html

Altman, I., & Low, S., 1992. Place Attachment. New York: Plenum.

Ammassari, S., Black, R., 2001. Sussex Migration Working Papers. Harnessing the Potential of Migration and Return to Promote Development: Applying Concepts to West Africa. Sussex Center for Migration Research.

https://www.un-ilibrary.org/migration/harnessing-the-potential-of-migration-and-return-to-promote- development_e2461201-en

Amnesty International, 2018. Lebanon 2017/2018 [online]. Accessed May 19, 2019, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/lebanon/report-lebanon/

Anthias, F., 1998. Evaluating ‘diaspora’: beyond ethnicity. Sociology 32: 557–580.

Asiedu, A., 2005. Some benefits of migrants’ return visits to Ghana. Population Space and Place, 11(1): 1–11.

Bakewell, O., 1996. Refugee Repatriation in Africa: Towards a Theoretical Framework? Center for Development Studies, University of Bath. Occasional Paper 04/96, July 1996. Bath BA2 7AY, UK.

Ballard, B., 2002. Reintegration programmes for refugees in South-East Asia: Lessons learned from UNHCR’s experience. UNHCR Evaluation & Policy Analysis Unit, April 2002.

Batistella, G., 2018. Return Migration: A Conceptual and Policy Framework, Scalabrini Migration Center. Center for Migration Studies. Retrieved May,4, 2019, from https://cmsny.org/publications/2018smsc-smc-return-migration/

BBC, 2018. What’s happening in Syria? [Online]. April 26. Accessed May 22, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/16979186

BBC, 2019. Syria profile - Timeline [online]. January 14. Accessed May 25, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703995

Black, R., 2002. Conceptions of ‘home’ and the political geography of refugee repatriation. Applied Geography, 22, 123-38.

Black, R., Koser, K., Munk, K., Atfield, G., D’Onofrio, L., Tiemoko, R., 2004. Understanding Voluntary Return. Home Office Online Report 50/04, United Kingdom.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220155644/http:/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/r dsolr5004.pdf

Bloch, A., and Atfield, G., 2002. The Professional Capacity of Nationals from the Somali Regions in Britain. Report for Refugee Action and IOM.

Braakman, M., 2005. ROOTS AND ROUTES. Questions of Home, Belonging and Return in an Afghan Diaspora. M.A. Thesis. Leiden University, Department of Cultural Anthropology & Sociology of Non-Western Societies, the Netherlands.

Bruneau, M., 2001. Peuples-monde de la longue durée: Grecs, Indiens, Chinois. L’Espace géographique, no. 3, 193-212.

Caratini, R., 1986. La Force des Faibles. Paris: Larousse, 198-199.

Carling, J., Erdal, M.B., 2014. Connections between Return Migration and Transnationalism. Guest Editors: Jorgen Carling and Marta Bivand Erdal. Return Migration and Transnationalism: How Are the Two Connected? International Organization for Migration. International Migration Vol.53 (6) 2014.

Cassarino, J. P., 2004. Theorising return migration: The conceptual approach to return migrants revisited. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(2), 253-279.

Cherri Z, Arcos González P & Castro Delgado R, 2016. The Lebanese-Syrian crisis: impact of influx of Syrian refugees to an already weak state. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 2016(Issue 1), pp.165–172.

Christou, A, 2006. American dreams and European nightmares: experiences and polemics of second- generation Greek-American returning migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(5), 831- 845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691830600704263

Chughtai, A., 2019. Syria’s War: Who Controls What? Retrieved. Al Jazeera [online]. March 12 Accessed April 28, 2019, from

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/05/syria-country-divided- 150529144229467.html

CNA, 2019. At Arab summit, Lebanon;s Aoun calls for Syrian refugees returns [online]. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/at-arab-summit--lebanon-s-aoun-calls-for-syrian- refugee-returns-11145574

CNN, 2019. Syrian Civil War Fast Facts. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-civil-war-fast-facts/index.html

Cohen, R., 1995. Rethinking ‘Babylon,’ Iconoclastic Conceptions to the Diaspora. New Community, 21:1, 5-18.

Cohen, R., 1997. Global Diasporas. UCL Press: London.

Cuba, L. & Hummon, D.M., 1993. A Place to Call Home: Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), pp.111–131.

Duval, D.T., 2004. Linking return visits and return migration among Commonwealth Eastern Caribbean migrants in Toronto. Global Networks, 4(1): 51–67

Eldawy, D., 2019. A Fragile Situation: Will the Syrian Refugee Swell Push Lebanon Over the Edge? [online]. Migration Policy Institute. February, 21. Accessed May 19, 2019, from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/syrian-refugee-swell-push-lebanon-over-edge

Eltink, L., 1999. Knelpunten in de uitvoering van het Nederlandse terugkeer beleid’, in Winter, H.B., Kamminga, A. and Herweijer, M. (eds.) (1999) Een Grens gesteld: Een Eerste Evaluatie van het Nederlandse Terugkeerbeleid, 21-27.

Feldman, R.M., 1990. Settlement identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society. Environment and Behavior, 22, 183-229.

Feldman, R.M.,1996. Constancy and change in attachments to types of settlements. Environment and Behavior, 28, 491-445

Gifford, R., 2002. Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice (3rd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Optimal Books.

Hall, S., 2018. Syria’s Spontaneous Returns [online]. February, 2018. Accessed May 16, 2019, from http://samuelhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Syria%E2%80%99s-Spontaneous-Returns- online.pdf

Harild, N., Christensen, A., Zetter, R., 2015. Sustainable Refugee Return: Triggers, constraints and lessons on addressing the development challenges of forced displacement. Global Program on Forced Displacement, Cross Cutting Area on Fragility Conflict and Violence, World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/542611468188337350/pdf/99618-WP-PUBLIC- Box393206B-Sustainable-Refugee-Return-15Sept-WEB-PUBLIC.pdf

Hauge, Åshild L., 2007. Identity and Place: A Critical Comparison of Three Identity Theories. Architectural Science Review, 50(1), pp.44–51.

Hinnebusch, R. and Imady, O., Eds.2018. The Syrian Uprising: Domestic Origins and Early Trajectory. Oxford: Routledge.

Human Rights Watch, 2003. Struggling through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola [online], August, 2003. Accessed May 15, 2019, from

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/angola0803.pdf

Human Rights Watch, 2019. Syria [online]. Accessed May 22, 2019, from

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/syria

Kayyali, S., 2018. The Syrian Conflict’s Next Front. Human Rights Watch [online]. November 23. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/23/syrian-conflicts-next-front

Kearney, M., 1995. The local and the global: The anthropology of globalization and transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 547-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.002555

King, R., 2000. Generalizations from the History of Return Migration. In Ghosh, B. (ed.) Return Migration. Journey or Hope or Despair? IOM/UNHCR, Switzerland, pp. 1-18.

King, R. & Christou, A., 2010. Cultural geographies of counter‐diasporic migration: perspectives from the study of second‐generation ‘returnees’ to Greece. Population, Space and Place, 16(2), pp.103–119.

King, R., and Christou, A., 2014. Second-generation “return” to Greece: New dynamics of transnationalism and integration. International Migration, 52(6), 85–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/imig.12149

King, R., Lulle, A., Mueller, D. and Vathi, Z., 2013. Visiting friends and relatives and its links with international migration: A three-way comparison of migrants in the UK, Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in international Migration and Ethnic Relations, 4/13. Malmo Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare, Malmo.

Kunuroglu, F., van de Vijver, F., & Yagmur, K., 2016. Return Migration. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1143

Lulle, A. (2014). Spaces of encounter–displacement: contemporary labour migrants’ return visits to Latvia. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(2): 127–140.

Lalli, M., 1992. Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285-303.

Majidi, N., 2017. Uninformed Decisions and Missing Networks, Espace populations sociétés [Online]. June 1, 2017. Accessed May 14, 2019, from

http://journals.openedition.org/eps/7098 ; DOI : 10.4000/eps.7098

Malkki, L.H., 1995. Refugees and Exile: From ‘Refugee Studies’ to the National Order of Things, in: Annual Revue of Anthropology 24: 495-523.

Manuh, T., 2002. Return to Ghana: a differentiated process. In Koser, K. (ed.) New African

Diasporas, Routledge, London, 140-159.

Markowitz, F., Stefansson, A.H. & Anteby-Yemini, L., 2004. Homecomings: unsettling paths of return, Lexington Books.

Mason, J., 2004. Managing Kinship over Long Distances: The Significance of ‘The Visit’. Social Policy & Society, 3(4): 421–429.

Massey, D., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., Taylor, J.E., 1993. Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review 19(3): 431 66.

Mavroudi, E., 2007. Diaspora as process: (de)constructing boundaries. Geography Compas1: 467–479

Migration Data Portal, 2019. Types of migration, Return migration [online]. The International Organization for Migration. Accessed May 4, 2019, from https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/return-migration

Morrison, J., 2000. External Evaluation of the Voluntary Return Project for Refugees in the

United Kingdom. London: Refugee Action.

Nebehay, S., 2018. 250,000 Syrian refugees could return home next year: UNHCR. Reuters [online]. December 11. Accessed April 28, 2019, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria- refugees/250000-syrian-refugees-could-return-home-next-year-unhcr-idUSKBN1OA13C

Oeppen, C., 2013. A stranger at ‘home’: interactions between transnational return visits and integration for Afghan-American professionals. Global Networks, 13(2): 261–278.

Ordeshook, P.C., 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Orton, K., n.d. The First YouTube War: A Case Study of Syria [online]. Accessed May 13, 2019, from

https://www.academia.edu/7632632/The_First_YouTube_War_A_Case_Study_of_Syria

Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., Landolt, P., 1999. The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22 (2):pp. 217-237

Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A.K., & Kaminoff, R., 1983. Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83

Proshansky, H.M., & Fabian, A.K., 1987. The development of place-identity in the child. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for Children (pp. 21-40). New York: Plenum.

Quayson, A., & Daswani, G., 2013. Introduction- diaspora and transnationalism: Scapes, scales, and scopes. In A. Quayson & G. Daswani (Eds.), A companion to diaspora and nationalism (pp. 1-26). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley- Blackwell.

Relph, E., 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion

Refworld, 2014. .Syria: Compulsory military service, including age of recruitment, length of service; occasions where proof of military service status is required; whether the government can recall individuals who have already completed their compulsory military service; penalties for evasion (2008-July 2014) [online]. Accessed May 20, 2019, from https://www.refworld.org/docid/54042353a.html

Reuters, 2018a. Syria offers amnesty to deserters and draft dodgers [online]. October, 9. Accessed May 20, 2019, from

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-conscription/syria-offers-amnesty-to- deserters-and-draft-dodgers-idUSKCN1MJ0RH

Reuters, 2019b. Russian envoy urges Syrian refugee return [online]. July 26. Accessed May 27, 2019, from

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-refugees/russian-envoy-urges-syrian- refugee-return-idUSKBN1KG2C8

Rodrigues, J. 2011. 1982: Syria's President Hafez al-Assad crushes rebellion in Hama [online]. The Guardian. August 1. Accessed May 25, 2019, from

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre- 1982-archive

Reynolds, T., 2008. Ties that bind: Families, social capital and Caribbean second generation return migration. (Working Paper 46). Brighton, United Kingdom: University of Sussex, Sussex Centre for Migration Research. Retrieved from: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=mwp46.pdf&site=252

Rogers, R., 1984. Return migration in comparative perspective. In D. Kubat (Ed), The politics of return. International return migration in Europe (pp. 227-299). New York, NY: Center for Migration Studies.

Rogge, J.R., 1994. Repatriation of Refugees, in Allen and Morsink (eds).

Rousseau, C., Morales, M. and Foxen, P., 2001. Going Home: Giving Voice to Memory of Young Mayan Refugees who returned to Guatemala as a Community Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25, 135-168.

Rowles, Graham D. 1983. Place and Personal Identity in Old Age: Observations from Appala-chia. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3: 29

Rushdie, S., 1991. Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism. London: Granta Books, 1001.

Safran, W., 1991. Diasporas in modern societies: myths of homeland and return. Diaspora1: 83–99.

Safran, W., 2007. Concepts, Theories, and Challenges of Diaspora: Apanoptic Approach. Prepared for presentation at the workshop on “Dispersione, “globalizzazione “e costruzione dell’alterità: diaspore et migrazioni nel bacino del Mediterraneo et oltre (XIX-XX secc.), sponsored by University of Pisa, Department of History. Marsala, Italy, September 18, 2007

http://www.sissco.it/articoli/cantieri-di-storia-iv-391/programma-392/dispersione-globalizzazione-e- costruzione-dellalterita-diaspore-e-migrazioni-nel-bacino-del-mediterraneo-ed-oltre-xix-xx-sec- 435/concepts-theories-and-challenges-of-diaspora-a-panoptic-approach-441/

Seamon, David. 1979. A Geography of the Lifeworld. New York: St. Martin’s Press

Shebaya, H., 2017. Xenophobia will not solve Lebanon’s refugee crisis [online]. Al Jazeera, May 31. Accessed May 19, 2019, from

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/05/xenophobia-solve-lebanons-refugee-crisis- 170523092620345.html

Shuval, J.T., 2000. Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical Paradigm. International Migration, 38(5), pp.41–56.

Simmons, A., 2000. Introduction: what are the conditions for successful Refugee Return? Refuge (2000),19(3), 1-2.

Stein, B.N. & Cuny, F.C., 1994. Refugee repatriation during conflict: Protection and post-return assistance. Development in Practice, 4(3), pp.173–187.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4028817

Schiller, N., G., Basch, L., & Blanc-Szanton, C., 1992. Towards a definition of transnationalism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645, ix–xiv. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.1992.tb33482.x

Shuval, J.T., 2000. Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical Paradigm. International Migration, 38(5), pp.41–56.

Tololian, K., 1991. The nation state and its others: in lieu of a preface. Diaspora, 1(1): 3-7

Tsuda, T., 2009. Introduction: Diasporic return and migration studies. In T. Tsuda (Eds.), Diasporic homecomings: Ethnic return migration in comparative perspective (pp. 1- 18). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Yijälä, A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., 2010. Pre-migration acculturation attitudes among potential ethnic migrants from Russia to Finland. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(4), 326-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.002

World Vision, 2019. Syrian refugee crisis: Facts, FAQs, and how to help. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from

https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories/syrian-refugee-crisis-facts

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1980. Conclusion No 18 (XXX1) Voluntary Repatriation. UNHCR Executive Committee 31st Session.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1987. Voluntary Repatriation: Principles and Guidelines for Action. Inter-office memo no. 5, 10/2/87.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1994. Voluntary repatriation to Afghanistan: 1993 achievements and 1994 activities. Islamabad.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2019 a. Syria Regional Refugee Response. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2019 b. Solutions. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.unhcr.org/solutions.html

Van Dijk, T.A., ed., 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse. Chapter 1, Introduction: Levels and Dimensions of Discourse Analysis. Academic Press, London.

Van Dijk, T.A., 2011. Discourse studies and hermeneutics. Discourse Studies, 13(5), pp.609–621.

Wessendorf, S., 2007. ‘Roots migrants’: Transnationalism and ‘return’ among second generation Italians in Switzerland. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(7),

1083-1102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691830701541614

Wimmen, H., 2016. Syria’s Path from Civic Uprising to Civil War [online]. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. November 22. Accessed May 25, 2019, from

https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/11/22/syria-s-path-from-civic-uprising-to-civil-war-pub-66171

Xu, Y., & Maitland, C., 2016. Communication Behaviors When Displaced: A Case Study of Za'atari Syrian Refugee Camp. 1-4. 10.1145/2909609.2909642.

Zetter, R., 1999. Reconceptualizing the Myth of Return: Continuity and Transition amongst the Greek-Cypriot Refugees of 1974. Journal of Refugee Studies 12, no. 1: 1– 22.

Videos

(V1)

Syrian Arab News Agency, 2019. Return of a New Group of Syrian Refugees Coming from Jordan through the Naseeb Crossing [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9kopo4jyU8 [Accessed May 27, 2019]

(V2)

Sama Channel, 2019. Refugee Returns Intensifies: Ten of Syrian Families Return Home through the Naseeb Crossing [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeXqt6JXsO8 [Accessed May 27, 2019]

(V3)

Al Jazeera Arabic, 2019. Thousands of Syrian Refugees in Jordan Return to their Country [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNDrujW3qA8 [Accessed May 27, 2019]

(V4)

Future TV News, 2019. A New Group of Syrian Immigrants Leaves Lebanon to Syria [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne8_C0EwwAE [Accessed May 27, 2019]

(V5)

Syrian CH-News, 2019. Homs - The Return of Tens of Migrant Families from Lebanon through the Dabousiyeh Crossing 24.01.2019 [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfw0BTErKwI\ [Accessed May 27, 2019]

(V6)

Syria Alikhbariyah, 2018. The Arrival of Hundreds of Syrian Migrants Returning from Lebanon through the Dabousiyeh Crossing on their Way to Return to their Villages [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dBemkCkDSY [Accessed May 27, 2019]

(V7)

Syrian CH-News, 2019. Homs- Tens of exiled families Return from Lebanon Through Dabousiyeh Crossing 28.02.2019 [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnyheG8vBUc [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V8)

Syrian CH-News, 2018. Homs- Return of a New Group of Exiled Syrians from Lebanon through Dabousiyeh Crossing 25.10.2018 [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtW0BVqLcw8 [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V9)

Elnashra News - Moujaz, 2018. Elnahsra: The Return of the Biggest Group of Syrian Migrants to their Country Today [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RGB7oDObg [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V10)

Sama Channel, 2019. Dabousiyeh Crossing - Homs: Return of a New Group of Exiled Syrians from the Lebanese Lands to their Villages [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktz0DQpNqj8 [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V11)

Elnashra News - Moujaz, 2018. Elnashra: The Arrival of a Number of Busses Bringing Exiled Syrians to their Villages [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIYhlJ0ysYA [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V12)

Syrian CH - News, 2018. The Arrival of a Second Group Today of the Exiled Syrians returning from Lebanon through the Jdaydet Yabus Crossing 25.10.2019 [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6stuNaBhL0 [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V13)

Syrian CH - News, 2018. Homs- The Arrival of Many Buses Bringing Hundreds of Syrian Citizens to the Dabousiyeh Crossing 15.10.2018 [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4dWJcLWqEw [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V14)

Sama Channel, 2019. Nasib Crossing: New Group of Syrian Migrants Returns from Refugee Camps in Jordan [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPPoEfit2Uc [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V15)

Aljadeedonline, 2018. The Moment Buses Carrying Syrian Refugees Leaves from the Masnaa Point on their Way to Returning to their Country [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDUlx4w6l54 [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V16)

Sputnik Arabic, 2019. 7000 Syrian Refugees Returned from Camps in Jordan since the Opening of the Nasib Crossing [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkTtrxQ-JTU [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V17)

OTV Lebanon, 2019. A New Group of Syrian Migrants Returns to Syria, with the Departure being from Abboudiyeh Crossing [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC0KIc1hBtg [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V18)

Sama Channel, 2018. Daraa Governorate: Nasib Crossing Witnesses the Return of More Syrians to the Country [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bfVUdKb9M0 [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V19)

Syrian Arab News Agency, 2018. The Return of Hundreds of Exiled Syrian from Lebanon [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5up233W1VkI [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V20)

Syrian Alikhbaria, 2019. The Arrival of a New Group of Exiled Syrians Returning from Jordan to the Nasib Crossing/Rabieh Dibeh [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPhjaJ3HNjA [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V21)

Syrian CH - News, 2019. News Reporter: The Arrival of a New Group of Exiled Syrians to the Nasib Border Crossing 09.01.2019 [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4f_dQjmmV0 [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V22)

Variety Variety, 2019. Member of Reconciliation Committee Omar Rahmoun Receives 100 Returning Refugees to Syria from Kasab Crossing [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk5Bd7Uzevw {Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V23)

Sputnik Arabic, 2018. What are the Reasons of Syrian Migrants in Camps in Lebanon Refusing to Return to Syria [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU_HpmLZYbU [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V24)

Tell Me, 2019. In #Germany they Do not Want to Return to #Syria and these are their Reasons #Syrians [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGBvdJ1wevE [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V25)

Orient TV, 2018. What is the Opinion of Syrian Refugees about the Return to Syria? Neighbors [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unCxuMMLnbs [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V26)

France 24 Arabic, 2018. Syrian Refugees in Jordan Return Voluntarily to their Country [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3nHs1PwnLM [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V27)

Rozana, 2018. The Echo of the Street: Are you Thinking of Going Back to Syria? [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r5SPog_y_U [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V28)

Syria TV, 2018. If the Situation Gets Better Would you Return to the Country? “See What were the Opinions of Syrians in Countries of Refuge” [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-w9csdYcjU [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V29)

Rasha and Life, 2017. If there is Return to Syria, Would you Return? / Green Rasha [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEb04dXSpgw [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V30)

Rasha and Life, 2017. Return to Syria??!! [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP_onDbhK7Q [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V31)

Al Jser TV, 2018. “Do Syrian Refugees Trust Guarantees by Russia and the Syrian Regime to Return?” Survey [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zni3WTGiXPM [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V32)

BBC News Arabic, 2018. #Syria BBC Trending: Syrian Refugees Escape from #Germany and Return to their Country [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFdBYjNY2lk [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V33)

Sky News Arabic, 2018. Syrian Refugees Afraid of Return [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqNcyp6j4_I [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V34)

Syria TV, 2019. Will Syrian Refugees Return from Jordan After Opening the Border Crossings? [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COmCYCadv7I [Accessed May 28, 2019]

(V35)

Amal Arabisch, 2018. Will Syrian Refugees Return to their Homeland If it Is Safe? [online video]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKZn3uMPJp0 [Accessed May 28, 201

1(1)