Bold claim: These Australian children in a Syrian camp dream of returning home, yet their path back is mired in political and humanitarian turmoil. But here’s where it gets controversial: the very idea of repatriation of families tied to ISIS splits public opinion and policy across Australia and the region. Below is a clearer, reader-friendly rewrite that preserves all essential details, adds light explanations for beginners, and keeps the original meaning intact while expanding where helpful.
In a dim tent within northeastern Syria’s Al-Roj camp, about six young girls sit on a rug, flipping through brightly colored children’s books such as The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Their voices carry unmistakable Australian accents, laced with sorrow and uncertainty about the life they know. One girl says, “We just want to go back to our countries, to our family in Australia, and spend time with them.” Another adds, “But we couldn’t because we needed to come back.”
These children are among 23 who attempted to leave Al-Roj last Monday morning, only to be stopped about 50 kilometers down the road by Syrian government forces blocking their journey to Damascus. Their mothers had moved to the Middle East during the height of the so-called Islamic State caliphate, declared in 2014 and defeated in 2019, and some of the children were born in Australia before being brought to Syria. For those born in Syria, camps like Al-Roj are the only homes they have ever known.
The ABC chose not to identify the children.
Dreams of ordinary life beyond the camp fences remain vivid for the youngsters. One girl around six, clutching a bright pink, fluffy handbag, described feelings from the past two weeks: learning they would leave Al-Roj, then being forced to return. “Sad and then nice, sad and then nice, sad and then ugly,” she explained. “I want to taste ice cream in Australia and buy some toys.” While the girls chat, their brothers kick a football on the camp’s gravel roads, turning the space into a makeshift field.
Last week, ABC revealed that Al-Roj staff quickly dismantled some tents. When the group returned, they found their living quarters taken down and had to share a smaller space. Camp director Hakmiyeh Ibrahim described the group’s reaction: the families were in a state of despair, nearly overwhelmed to the point of not being able to exit their cars. She noted the families had lived in Al-Roj for more than five years, waiting for a moment that did not come. “And suddenly, after they left the camp and reached it, almost… it wasn’t working out. They had to go back to where they came from,” she said.
Mothers worry about their children’s wellbeing in the Syrian camp environment. Their case, along with that of 11 accompanying women, has sparked a heated political debate in Australia. The federal government has admitted it cannot prevent the group from returning home if they manage to leave the camp, aside from issuing a temporary exclusion order (TEO) against one woman—barring her entry to Australia for up to two years. Although the ABC has disclosed the identities of the 11 women, it remains unclear who, if anyone, is subject to the travel ban. The government maintains it will do little to assist their mission beyond legally required actions such as issuing passports. Kurdish officials warned that public statements from Canberra could hinder the return process.
Two mothers who asked not to be named told the ABC they merely want their children to be safe and expressed frustration about how the situation is affecting them. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese criticized the mothers’ actions, declaring he has “contempt” for them for placing their children in danger, while acknowledging compassion for the children involved. He noted that others who chose to travel to the area made their own life decisions. Earlier reports from The Guardian suggested some mothers would be willing to let their children be repatriated without them, but the two mothers also told the ABC that the children feel safe with their mothers.
When asked whether Australia would consider accepting the children without their parents, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles stated clearly: “Australia is not facilitating the return of any of this cohort — it’s as simple as that.”
Conditions in Syria’s camps are grim. Al-Hol, located farther south, is now under Syrian government control after Kurdish authorities previously managed Al-Hol and Al-Roj. Some Australian mothers and children attempting to depart Al-Roj had also lived in Al-Hol for years. The Syrian government condemned Kurdish management of Al-Hol, accusing Kurdish forces of enabling a mass escape in late January. Syrian Interior Ministry spokesperson Noureddine al-Baba claimed the Kurdish withdrawal left more than 130 escape points along a 17-kilometer perimeter, creating chaos that threatened regional security. He described the situation as “deplorable,” with thousands detained for years under harsh conditions, highlighting violations of justice and human rights. He noted that the government would ensure humane treatment for all in its care and would contact foreign ministries if foreign nationals were involved.
Despite the turmoil, Ms. Ibrahim believes Al-Roj’s situation will not mirror Al-Hol’s. She argues it would be in the children’s best interests for Australia to bring them home, because they are victims of their parents’ choices. “These are children who were victims of their parents,” she said. They have not known a normal life and have absorbed aggression and harshness from their environment. She proposes that each country take in its own families, after which the children could be placed in rehabilitation centers, and the mothers could also receive rehabilitation.
Would you support repatriating children without their parents if that’s what keeps them safe, or do you believe families should stay together abroad as a policy? Share your thoughts in the comments.
