Talk:Palestinian right of return/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC: Descendants

Summary of dispute

A number of editors feel that this article should refer to the persons living in Palestinian refugee camps as "refugees" (meaning those displaced in 1947-48) "and their descendants" (meaning those born outside of Israel).

Comments

At first blush this would seem like a reasonable distinction, as one of the common definitions for refugees is, well, one who flees seeking refuge. A person born in a refugee camp has never fled from anywhere, and so would not be a "refugee" according to this definition. Indeed, it is not difficult to find media references which do make this distinction, such as a USA Today article already mentioned.

However, the more rigorous definition of refugee, as defined by the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which Israel has signed and ratified, holds that refugees are those who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country." Related conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, use similar language. In the specific case of the Palestinians, the question of who is a Palestinian refugee has been addressed by many legal scholars, and specifically defined by the U.N. agency responsible for aiding them. The UNHCR is very clear that descendants of those who left Israel in 1947-48 are considered refugees. The legal scholars concur that descendants are refugees. References are provided above and absolutely nothing has been provided which disputes these references.

It is, of course, important to note once, neutrally, that refugees are defined to include descendants of refugees. It may be a good idea to note briefly and neutrally that this has led to criticism from some Israeli-aligned sources who see it as an attempt to single out Israel and saddle them with guilt for displacing people who they didn't actually displace. But the extreme-minority POV that labels descendants as "not real refugees" simply has no sway over the rest of the article. It's irrelevant. It's like saying "alleged curvature of the Earth" every time in an astronomy article, or "according to the disputed Theory of Evolution, Lycopodiophyta originated some 420 million years ago" in a botany article. <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mentioning the "descendants" qualifier once is enough. Most of the descendants of refugees are stateless individuals, and thus refugees themselves. The United Nations and international human rights organizations are certainly reliable sources in this context. If the definition has been criticized by Israel, then that criticism should be briefly discussed, with citations. If other organizations have criticized it, then those criticisms should be included or not, depending on the prominence of the criticisms, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. I think that many articles related to the Israel/Palestine conflict do not reflect a world view on the subject. The U.S. and Israel tend to be in the minority throughout the international community on such issues, and while it's definitely a prominent view due to the role of the U.S. as a superpower, it's still a minority view in the world as a whole. *** Crotalus *** 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

here from the RfC: The lead should state that we are talking about refugees and thier descendants. thereafter, it should refer only to "refugees", except when such reference might create confusion, e.g. when talking about the numbers who were expelled/fled in 1947-48. As a side note, continuing to edit war over this while an RfC is in place, and making edits which run counter to your own preffered version (e.g: ones which omit the refernce to the descendants in the lead) is bad form. Please don;t do it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't touch it. It would help if even one of the persons advocating for "and their descendants" would explain their edits on the talk page. <eleland/talkedits> 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say "and their descendents". The issue of refugees is clearly one in which a war of public opinion is being waged. The average person has no problem saying that a person who was forced to leave his home should, in most cases, be able to return. But extending the term "refugee" to include people who never lived in that home is basically designed to "put one over" on the public, by hiding the real implications of a "right of return".

Note that Jews used to all live in areas which are now divided into Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and parts of Syria. Do we call Jews refugees? We don't, but it would be just as legitimate as calling the descendents of Palestinian Arabs who left the region in 1948 refugees. More so, because none of the Jews who were exiled by the Babylonians and Romans left of their own free will, while a disputed number of Palestinian Arabs who left in 1948 did leave of their own choice.

Honesty and NPOV requires that the term be used not in the way it is used in highly politicized sources in this one instance, but rather the way it is used in common discourse and in general. Which is to describe only those who actually left the area. To omit that qualifier is POV. And it should be used throughout the article. If not every time the term is used, then at least in every section where it is used. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What sources support you on this view, and how reliable are they? <eleland/talkedits> 05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uninvolved - I do have a view but, hopefully, I can answer this RFC only in terms of Wiki Policy/guidlines - References, references, references. &Descendants is referenced once which gives it one mention. If RefugeeS is referenced once, it is entitled to one mention. Further &Descendants or RefugeeS references are then needed to drown out every subsequent RefugeeS or &Descendants. If (and when?) available references outway available slots, time for new RFC. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, the definition of a "Palestinian refugee" is unique, and failing to note this in the article would mislead and confuse the reader. All other refugees include only the people who actually left their home country, whereas "Palestinian refugee" includes all of their descendants, ad infinitum. This difference is enshrined in the definition of a "Palestinian refugee", which is unique, and differs from all other refugees, and in the special U.N. organization set up to deal only with Palestinians in perpetuity, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East - all other refugees fall under the purview of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. As for the phrase "Palestinian and their descendants", even Rashid Khalidi, a strongly pro-Palestinian scholar who has written extensively on Palestinian identity (among other things), uses the phrase for clarity:

• "it must be accepted that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to their homes in principle..."[1]

Human Rights Watch also uses the phrase:

• "To this end, HRW urges Israel to recognize the right to return for those Palestinians, and their descendants, who fled from territory that is now within the State of Israel, and who have maintained appropriate links with that territory."[2]

The strongly pro-Palestinian Washington Report on Middle East Affairs uses the same language:

• "Israeli leaders always have declared that allowing Palestinians and their descendants to return to their homes or property inside Israel would be suicidal and would destroy the Jewish nature of the state... The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) estimates there are 6.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants."[3]

So, too, the BBC:

• "Palestinian assertions of the right of return for themselves and their descendants are based both on a moral standpoint, claiming the refugees' rights to return to homes from which they have been displaced, and on a number of resolutions issued by the United Nations."[4]

Etc. It is unclear why editors would want to remove language that is both accurate and obviously makes the article more easily understood. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that edits like this actually modify direct quotes. This becomes rather ironic in the context of edit summaries that claim that their opponent is making edits that are "not reasonably distinguishable from vandalism". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

One reasonable compromise would be this: we should say once (preferably in the lead) that "Palestinian refugees" include those who fled/were expelled and their descendants. Once the term is cleared up, there'd be no need for repeating the term "descendants".Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarize what the article says, not introduce entirely new concepts. And there is no compromise on clarity. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First, Jay, no-one has suggested that the definition of "Palestinian refugee" should be omitted from this article. You say that "All other refugees include only the people who actually left their home country, whereas "Palestinian refugee" includes all of their descendants, ad infinitum. This ... is unique, and differs from all other refugees," but you haven't provided any references for that claim. Above, note the article from the Melbourne Journal of International Law which states that "Consistent with basic principles of statutory interpretation," "The ICCPR and the CERD provisions are based on the UDHR language and do not link the right of return to 'nationality' or 'state of nationality". Rather, in each case the relevant language is generously drafted ... According to several legal commentators, this ‘accommodate[s] the situation of second-, third- or fourth-generation refugees born outside their 'country', giving them a right to enter the country - which is of considerable significance in the Palestinian context." In other words, legal scholars say that the definition of refugees to include persons "born outside their country" is significant in the Palestinian context, but certainly not unique to the Palestinian context.

It's interesting that the source (which expresses the views of the anonymous "site coordinator" alone) which you cite quoting Khalidi is actually an adaptation of a more detailed source ([5]) which uses "refugees" many times to refer to all refugees, including descendants. Right in the second sentence, it says "The Palestinians have the unfortunate status of being both the largest single group of refugees in the world (numbering over 3 million persons)," and the author continues to discuss the refugee issue in detail over many paragraphs, frequently using the word "refugee" without mention of "descendants" or any equivalent qualifier, and saying "In the case of Palestinian refugees, approximately 10% were born before 1948, in Palestine." You're right that he quotes Khalidi, in an unknown context, referring to "refugees and their descendants," but he also quotes Dore Gold fretting over "a situation where the Palestinian Authority floods Judea and Samaria with refugees." (not "refugees and their descendants").

So that's your first source; it quotes a Palestinian-American scholar saying "refugees and their descendants" and it quotes an Israeli UN ambassador saying "refugees," but in its own voice it exclusively uses "refugees", defining them to include descendants.

Your second source, the WRMEA piece, uses the "and their descendants" twice, once to explain the Israeli point-of-view and once in its own voice, to explain the UNRWA definition. Subsequently it uses the word "refugee" some 16 times (excepting in a compound formation like "refugee camp" or "refugee problem") all without qualifiers or "descendants" language. It even refers to Khalid Shikaki, who was born in 1953 in Gaza, as a refugee. So that's your second source: it once mentions Israeli concerns about "refugees and their descendants," once mentions the UNRWA definition which includes displaced 1948 refugees and their descendants, and from then on just refers to "refugees", including both 1948-displaced and their descendants.

Your third source is a real gem; the very first words are, "There are more than 3.7 million Palestinian refugees..." — you've got big brass ones, Jay, I'll give you that.

In summary, the very sources which you've offered to prove your point actually undermine it. The sources all mention the refugees/descendants distinction, but none of them feel the need to mention it more than once or twice. All of them use the term "refugee" in the way I want this article to use it, the way all relevant international law uses it, and the way every scholarly work I've yet seen on the subject uses it. <eleland/talkedits> 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In your view the sources "undermine it", in mine they are careful to state that they are referring to refugees and their descendants, precisely because they know that the vast majority of Palestinians did not, in fact, flee Israel, but rather are the descendants (now up to great-grandchildren) of actual refugees. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah: you mentioned that I modified direct quotes. While removing a series of drive-by POV-pushing, I modified one direct quote, by accident, and I apologize. I should have exercised more care. I'm not sure how that's comparable to blatant sock-puppetry from an open proxy, which brought on my remark about "vandalism". (And while we're airing greivances, I'd like to note that you've just accused me of "political point-making" in lieu of "think[ing] of the reader," which is mudslinging to say the least.) <eleland/talkedits> 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason several editors of this article feel it is helpful to obfuscate the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians do not fit under the conventional understanding of "refugee"; the reasons I have read for this seem related entirely to political point-making, rather than thinking of the reader. Careful editing, rather than point-making, would also obviate the modification of direct quotes. And I suspect that almost none of our readers regularly read the opinions of the Melbourne Journal of International Law Jayjg ^(talk) 07:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the conflict here. Eleland thinks the article should clarify upfront that "Palestinian refugees" – by legal and scholarly consensus as well as vernacular custom – refers to those who fled or were expelled and their descendants, and then go on to use it that way, instead of endlessly repeating the formulation "refugees and their descendents." Jay has provided sources doing more or less just that – using the clarifying phrase once or twice and then dropping it. What's the conflict? The way forward seems pretty clear.--G-Dett (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks to the sources provided by Jayjg, it is clear that once the term is defined, there is no need to keep repeating "and their descendants". It's completely redundant and more than a little WP:UNDUE. Tiamut 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my position (and I think G-Dett and Tiamat may agree), the article should state once, in the lede, that the definition of "Palestinian refugees" includes descendants of the original refugees. It should probably re-iterate that, once, somewhere in the body (probably "UN General Assembly Resolution 194/Interpretations") in giving a more in-depth explanation of the definition. It should freely refer to "descendants" when explaining Israeli objections to the right of return, either in direct quotes from sources, or in attributed paraphrases.

Other than that, it should always refer to "refugees", and freely use the term to refer to descendants of persons displaced in 1948 (or 1967) and unable to return. It should not use the term descendants in a manner which implies they are not really refugees, as in "the number of refugees and their descendants is 3-6 million." That's in line with all of the sources seen thus far, including those helpfully provided by Jayjg. <eleland/talkedits> 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be the way forward. The article as a whole should make very clear how Palestinian refugees are defined, and clearly present the controversy that definition has occasioned. But the net effect of mechanically repeating "and their descendants" is to actively contest that definition, which runs afoul of NPOV (and specifically UNDUE, as Tiamut has pointed out).--G-Dett (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is, either. I don't think we should have an article that says "the demand that Palestinian refugees and their decendents can emigrate to what is now Israel. Palestinian refugees are those Palestinians who fled or were expelled ... and their descendants." Besides being tendentious, this is redundant and stylistically obnoxious. And it's redundant. <eleland/talkedits> 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it has been shown to be a neutral and accurate descriptor, "and their descendants" should be used in any place where it would enhance clarity and accuracy, obviously. I can't see any reason to want less clarity and accuracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Readers of this article should emerge with a clear understanding of what a "Palestinian refugee" is, and repeating a redundant qualifier at every turn obscures that.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Adding factual and relevant information, information which various reliable pro-Palestinian sources have felt the need to add themselves, somehow "obscures" clear understanding? That's a baffling claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Various reliable sources have felt the need to add the phrase on occasion, but much more often those same sources refer simply to "Palestinian refugees," a term which by legal, scholarly, and idiomatic convention includes not only those who fled or were expelled in 1948 but also their descendants. We should do likewise. That is, we should sometimes (but not "at every turn") use the qualifying phrase, especially when a source does, and (I'm inclined to think) when numbers are involved. If we use it at every turn, on the other hand, we run the risk of obscuring the term's actual meaning, or worse yet, of appearing to contest it tendentiously. Something makes me think you got all this the first time around, but if not, and if you still don't get it now, let me know and I'll do my best to unbaffle you by speaking slowly and eschewing avoiding big words.--G-Dett (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I must protest that your last sentence is entirely uncivil, and significantly detracts from the tenor of the discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, of course. I'm trying to determine which placings would enhance clarity and accuracy. I'm also concerned that constant, mechanical repetition of the phrase "refugees and their descendants" goes beyond merely clarifying the definition of a refugee, into the realm of political advocacy. I certainly do not want our readers to get the impression that the 4-6 million Palestinian refugees were all expelled by Israel; nor do I want them to get the impression that properly speaking, descendants of those expelled are not "real" refugees. I'm saying that the way to do that is to clearly note that refugees include descendants of those expelled, then proceed to call those refugees, well, "refugees". It's been shown that "and their descendants" is a neutral and accurate descriptor; it's also been shown that just plain "refugees" is a neutral and accurate descriptor. I think we should alternate between the two of them in the same fashion which the sources do. <eleland/talkedits> 05:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense; where do you think it should be included, and where should it not be included? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comment of 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC) above <eleland/talkedits> 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment of 18:01, 7 January 2008 said the phrase should be used once in the lede, and once in the body. Your statement of 05:04, 8 January 2008 said "we should alternate between the two of them in the same fashion which the sources do". Is that what you meant by "alternate between the two of them", once in the lede and once in the body? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I hope you're acting in good faith, here. I meant that we should determine when to say "refugees and descendants" and when to say "refugees" based on the pattern of such usage found in the sources. The sources use "descendants" to clarify the definition of what a "refugee" is, then proceed to call descendants "refugees" without any more qualifiers. That is the fashion in which the sources alternate between the two formulations.

I understand that you don't want the article to mislead people into thinking that all 4-6 million refugees were expelled by Israel. I'd like you to understand that I don't want the article to mislead people into thinking that all 4-6 million refugees are not really refugees, or that their status as refugees is somehow a special exception to the rule. As shown above, the status of Palestinian refugees is determined by exactly the same principles which apply to refugees everywhere else. However, the article keeps being subtly changed to imply that Palestinian refugees are getting some kind of special treatment, perhaps as part of an anti-Israel plot by the rest of the world. I hope we can agree that this article should be written in accordance with the findings of refugee-studies experts and international lawyers, not in line with the fulminations of partisan blogs and pressure groups. <eleland/talkedits> 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But this issue is precisely where you are wrong. The definition of a “Palestinian Refugee”, which includes multi-generational descendants, is indeed unique, and there is no shortage of reliable sources, including international lawyers, that point out its unique nature. For example, the well known expert on International Law Prof Ruth Lapidoth writes:

The question arises whether all those registered with UNRWA should be considered as refugees. The 1951-1967 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees4 has adopted the following definition: ...[A]ny person who: (2) owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it... There is no mention in this definition of descendents. Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who, inter alia, "has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality."5 Under this definition, the number of Palestinians qualifying for refugee status would be well below half a million. However, the Arab states managed to exclude the Palestinians from that definition, by introducing the following provision into the 1951-1967 Refugees Convention: This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection and assistance.

[6]

Or

Whereas the rest of the world’s refugees are the concern of the UNHCR, the Palestinians are the sole group of refugees with a UN agency dedicated exclusively to their care: The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which operates independently of the Convention on refugees. The differences between the two agencies are striking: In addition to classifying Palestinian refugees by a distinct set of criteria...

...[UNRWA} was free to set its own definitions and guidelines–definitions which differ markedly from those used by UNHCR. Thus, it described “Palestinian refugees” as

persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict.4 The use of this definition is remarkable in itself, not least because its very short residency requirement–just two years–allows the inclusion of a great number of people who had recently arrived in Palestine, and were thus newcomers to the region; indeed, many of the people who fled Israel at that time had only just arrived from neighboring Arab countries in search of work. Contrast this with the definition provided by the UNHCR, established just two years later and charged with functioning within the parameters of the UN’s Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UNHCR was bound by the Convention, the universal standard for refugee status and the only definition recognized by international law. In this version, a refugee is someone who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.5 By emphasizing “country of nationality or habitual residence,” the UNHCR clearly intends to exclude the kind of transients– for example, a new arrival to the area in question for the purpose of employment–embraced by UNRWA’s definition. This is not the only way in which the two definitions differ. The UNRWA definition also encompasses many other persons who would otherwise be excluded by the UNHCR. The latter, for example, outlines in detail the conditions under which the status of “refugee” no longer applies, stating that formal refugee status shall cease to apply to any person who has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or, he has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or… he can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality.6

By excluding people who have found legal protection from established states, or who have refused to do so when offered, UNHCR has sought to prevent expansion of the definition in ways that would encourage the improper use of UNHCR’s services for political ends. UNRWA, however, has done just the opposite: Not only has it declined to remove the status of refugee from those persons who no longer fit the original description, such as the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been granted full citizenship by Jordan, but it confers indefinitely the status of refugee upon a Palestinian refugee’s descendants, now entering the fourth generation.

[7] Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CM, the sources you're citing seem to be re-enforcing the argument I'm making. Both refer repeatedly to "refugees" in a manner which makes it clear that "refugees" include "descendants". Both argue, from their conservative-Israeli POV, that the definition of "refugee" is unfair, and both sources would be suitable for inclusion as attributed critical commentary. However, neither source actually claims or implies that the descendants of those expelled are not refugees. <eleland/talkedits> 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Either way is fine - whether "refugees" or "refugees and their descendants" is used, it makes no difference. MilesAgain (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Front Image concearns

I don't have any special problems with the image itself. My problem is with the use of an anonymous flicker image with a overly political title to present a topic which relates to 4+ million people.

For starters, I trust there are better Palestinian artists out there - and I'd like to see a more representative work by one of them on the cover of this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This guy [8] seems famous from a google search [9], I think it would be a far better front image for the article if someone takes the incentive of finding out input about the image copyright. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's under CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0. The "NC" means "non commercial" which means we can't use it here.

I don't much like the front image either, but it's difficult to see it as "overtly political". It's just a weird image. It's the most suitable image available under a free license on Flikr, though. <eleland/talkedits> 06:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's such a low level image that I really feel that it detracts from the article. Seriously, I can take a picture of a key and it would be more appealing. If there's no substitute suggested, then I promote that we remove the image... it only makes the article look like immature child work. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A key is inflammatory as well, a map of population transfers maybe more appropriate.--Saxophonemn (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Quite an interesting suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is contextually of all post WW2 population transfers this is the only one still in limbo despite being the smallest. It feels like the keys are not real, but higly politicized symbols. --Saxophonemn (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A figure that includes....

can anyone explain to me the following text from the article?

"a figure that includes some 145,000 people who were refugees of the first war."

thanks in advance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Of the estimated 300,000 people who were made refugees in 1967, some 145,000 of them were refugees of the 1948 war as well. In other words, they were refugees twice over. Tiamut^talk 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

does that mean that they came back and became displaced a second time or that the numbers are mixed up in a different manner? the article text is not clear enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Being displaced twice does not imply "coming back"... I think you arer confusing the issue. Zeq (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further ... of the people who became refugees of the 1948 war, many of them ended up in the West Bank. When the 1967 war broke out, some of these people (who were already refugees of towns and villages that ended up inside what became Israel), became refugees again, this time ending up outside of the West Bank, which was occupied by Israel. Capische? Tiamut^talk 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, if this is a case they don't need to be mentioned specifically. They are refugees and still refugees and their "right" (if there is such) has not changed. We also need tio account for all those Palestinians (hundreds of thousands) who emigrated into israel over the last 40 years. Zeq (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Zeq. I'm not following what you're trying to say. Why should we neglect to mention 145,000 people that were made refugees a second time in 1967? That's what the reliable source cited says. It certainly seems relevant to the article.

Does this (assuming that it is true) in any way changes their claim for "right of return" ? does it make it stroger ? weaker ? No. They claim a "right" to return to their original homes . The fact that they moved once or twice or 3 times is not relevant to this article which is about the "Right" Zeq (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zeq, but I can't take this point seriously at all. Describing the number of refugees from 1948 and 1967 and the fact that some refugees in 1967 were being made refugees for a second time, using reliable sources, seems imminently relevant to this article. I don't know why you find the inclusion of such information so disturbing. If you have a policy-based reason for its non-inclusion, by all means put it forward. Otherwise, I'm pretty much done discussing the issue. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, we are not talking here about your emotional reaction to the issue but on the enecyclopedic value as it relates to the issue of the "right" . If we are to speak about emotions - yes it is terrible that people haver to be refugees twice but that has no impct on the question of the right of return. I hope you change your mind and continue to discuss the issue with an attempt to make the article NPOV. Zeq (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As to your second point, there's an article entitled Palestinian immigration (Israel) (badly in need of restructuring) where you can discuss the topic of immigration at length. If you find a reliable source making a link between the two subjects, it might warrant a brief mention somewhere in the body with a link to the article which discusses the topic in full. Tiamut^talk 06:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is relevant to this article as many Palestininas who claim the "right" of return have already emigrated into israel. Hundreds of thousands of them. Zeq (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt very much that there are "hundreds of thousands" of them. In any case, all you have to do to include this information in the article, as I stated above, is find a reliable source that discusses the issue with respect to the Palestinian right of return. If it's such a huge phenomenon, it shouldn't be hard to find a source. I repeat however, that IMHO, any extended discussion of Palestinian immigration into Israel should be focused in the article on that subject Palestinian immigration (Israel). Tiamut^talk 07:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. Sorry. Any article on "Palestinian right of return" should refer to the issue described by that term, and all resulting concerns and considerations, by all sides, including Israeli concerns on Palestinian immigration. This article should not focus exclusively and only on the concept referred to as "Palestinian right of return'. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are about 150,000-200,000 and since we include decendents the number surly is larger. This is called in israel as "silent right of return" and surlty it is part of this article (if we are intersted in including the Israeli POV) Zeq (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we are interested by Israel's pov.

But whatever is claimed, give a "precise material" and a "reference".

This number of 150,000-200,000, does-it refer to the Arabs who were not expelled by Israeli forces in 1948 and those who clandestinely crossed to borders to settle back in Israel ?

Ceedjee (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The clandestently is on top of that number. The 150,000 is Palestinian s who received presmissoon from israel to become israeli residents/citizens. Zeq (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When ? To what event do you refer ? Ceedjee (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, focusing on the issue i opened this subsection to... can you please rephrase the text in a way that explains the point i raised? (please reply here with the diff so i'll know it's fixed) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here;s the diff. I have to fix a spelling mistake I just noticed, but I hope that makes it clearer to you. Tiamut^talk 14:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pov

I added the pov flag to warn the readers.
The current lead doesn't respect WP:LEAD. Neither the Israeli, nor the Palestinian positions nor the international position are in the core of the article.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

not sure what is the "int'l" POV - can you explain ? In any case we need to go back to the format that allow each major POV to be correctly represented. Zeq (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You kept complaining on this talk page about the lack of neutrality. So I assume you agree the flag is required.

I don't undertand what "int'l" means. Ceedjee (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"International" Zeq (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ok. Sorry.

I don't know what is the international pov's.

But eg, UNO resolutions are what I mean by the "international" pov's.

If USA, Russia or any country of importance gave a mind about, that is alos the "international pov". Ceedjee (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was only quoting you few lines above so I am surprized you are asking the question. I can only refer you to your comment and ask that you explain what you meant in: "The current lead doesn't respect WP:LEAD. Neither the Israeli, nor the Palestinian positions nor the international position are in the core of the article" Zeq (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The LEAD is currently not a synthesis of material developed in the article.

Tne international pov on the issue deserves as much as the other pov's.

Hope this is clearer (could you answer to the question of the 150k here above ? I wonder what you refer to...). Ceedjee (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The 150,000 issue is the additional refugees from 1967 - see above and below. Can you clarify what do you mean by "the international position " ? Zeq (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"UNO resolutions are what I mean by the "international" pov's. If USA, Russia or any country of importance gave a mind about, that is alos the "international pov"."

What do you mean by that : "The clandestently is on top of that number. The 150,000 is Palestinian s who received presmissoon from israel to become israeli residents/citizens." ?

When ? To what do you refer ? I don't understand.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Refugee Estimates

Current version of the article writes in the intro that "the number of Palestinian refugees, including both first-generation refugees and their descendants, is estimated with at least four million"

However, a reference in the next paragraph writes that "the total number of Palestinians throughout the world in 1998 was 8,041,569" [10]

I think we should sort it out and write in "between at least four million (source) and XXX million (source)". Can anyone find the high-end estimation please so we can fix this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• This source puts forward Salman Abu Sitta's figure of 5,115,095 as a "high end" estimate, citing UNRWA's (then) 3.6 million as too low. It offer Rosemary Sayigh's figure of 4,750,000 as a mid-way figure. I'll look more more and get back to you. Tiamut^talk 13:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The United Nations group HABITAT placed the estimate of refugees in 2004-1005 at over 5 million. Tiamut^talk 13:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Elia Zuriek explains that the discrepancy between the figure of registeres refugees (which at his time of writing was 3.5 million, and today is 4.4 million according to UNRWA) and the higher figure of 5 million (again, at the time of his writing) derives from how a refugee is defined. He says those not registered with UNRWA include:

1. Those displaced in 1967, who consist of "first-time refugees (referred to as 'displaced persons' in the lingo of the quadripartite committee of the Middle East peace process consisting of Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians), and some of the 1948 refugees who became refugees for the second time during the 1967 war. Those who were displaced for the first time in 1967 are not registered with UNRWA, and technically are not entitled to its services."
2. Middle-class Palestinians who did not register with the UNRWA in 1948
3. Those who became permanent, internal refugees in the newly established state of Israel in 1948 (numbering 20 per cent of the one million Palestinian citizens of Israel)
4. Those who were outside Palestine when the 1948 War broke out andwere also prevented by Israel from returning to their homes, those who were expelled by Israel for 'security' reasons, and the so-called ' late-comers' who, according to Israeli bureaucratic criteria, lost their residency status as a result of being outsidethe territories when the 1967 war broke out, or extended their absence from their homeland (for the purpose of visits, work, marriage, study, etc.) and were not allowed to return by Israel.
5. The 300,000-350,000 Palestinian refugees who were expelled from the Gulf in the aftermath of the Gulf war, and reverted back to their refugee living conditions in the camps, primarily in Jordan.
6. The newest category of East Jerusalem refugees who are residents of Jerusalem who Israel has succeeded, through gerrymandering of the boundaries of Jerusalem and by imposing an arbitrary, draconian definition of residency, to confiscate their Jerusalem identity papers and render them stateless.

We need to make clear the distinction between the different definitions, breaking them into two major sub-types:

• Those who are registered with UNRWA : i.e. 4.4 million people
• Those who were not registered with UNRWA (estimated 1.5 million and up) with the various sub-types in this group being as described by Zureik above and in some of the sources I cite on this page User:Tiamut/legal sources for right of return. Tiamut^talk 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. If you want to write this in on a user page and after it's complete to insert it into the article, I'm willing to help and collaborate with you on that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue is a moral one and, how you view humanity is the basis for this discussion. I view all humanity as equal and deserving the same rights.

I think Zionists do not view humanity as equals because of their actions and views. Before Zionism, there were Palestinians of all religions in Palestine. Palestine is an irreligious name. A Jewish State in a predominantly Arab area is not within the indigenous populations interest, obviously not a good idea, any idiot can see that. The moral question being did Jews have a right to > immigrate > establish statehood > prevent return of arabs.

I believe it's a no. Firstly, Palestines' residents, should morally decide who should immigrate in and out of their land, this was the first wrong, long before the holocaust. They were prevented from self-determination in their own land. The huge mass of Jews immigrating with a PUBLIC aim of taking as much land as possible in order to rule it, was NOT the will of the population, naturally. Every single people in the world would become immediately hostile to such groups. Palestine was predominantly Arab and run by Arabs 3 times longer than it was run by Jews bazillions of years ago, and having fought and died for it during the Crusades and many other conflicts. Is it the home of Jews, I also disagree, I don't believe Jews are a nation. Otherwise they wouldn't have had to "take the cities of Canaan" in order to establish the nation, they were a group of religious cultists who had some ideas, not a country. They wanted one, naturally the fertile part, but this does not give them the RIGHT to one. And of course, it naturally followed that it didn't exist for long, both first time and second time, and probably third time. A legitimate state does not constantly fight for it's existance, illegitimate states, constantly do.

So the very basis of Israel is illegitimate, it's as legitimate as Danish (Vikings)people ruling south-eastern England because they had it a while back, in fact more recently than Jews ran Palestine, a lot more recently. Therefore using this example, it's as legitimate to allow unlimited immigration of Danes as it is to allow unlimited immigration of Jews, not only any Danes but Danes who publically aim to rule a part of England.

Now Israels official reason for not allowing Palestinians to return is that it's not their responsibility and that their descendents don't have the right etc etc. There is no argument that can be made by Israel that doesnt apply FAR BETTER to the Jewish immigration into Palestine.

Some would argue the Danes already have a country. However, they don't need Deuteronomy or Numbers to justify it. They exist as a proper state, they did not have to source Danes from world over, they did not have to reinvent a dead Danish language, they do not have to prevent the return of millions of people (refugees) to secure their existance, they do not destroy other economies to secure their wellbeing, they don't steal 80% of another nations Water, or build homes under the guide of the army on foreign soil. Yes, when they were Vikings they did these things, which is fitting, as it is such savagery, barbarism and backwardness that perfectly describes Zionism. LegendaryHammy (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very educational to read this dicsusiion of Jews having - or not having - a right for a state, in a page discussing the right of return. I think it sheds some light on the actual issues at hand.

I am rather new to Wiki editing, so if you remove this comment from this page, please take the time to remove the previous one too.

Erubin1967 (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hammy, what are you implying? You made a rant about the legitimacy of the Jewish state using faulty logic. --Saxophonemn (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not really editing this article, just fixing syntax. Best wishes, all. Durova^Charge! 07:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Allan Gerson

per this diff [11]

Pardon the question Eleland, I don't see where I've inserted any denial regarding the "not a disputed "claim" but accepted fact". I did make changes to the text based on the cited book -- Allan Gerson, Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p.162. -- and didn't see any part of these changes as problematic.
Hoping I've clarified my edit to your satisfaction. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I don't have the cited book, and I don't need it to know that presenting the demolition of Imwas, Yalu, and Beit Nuba as a "claim" rather than a fact is completely unacceptable. Try [12] [13] [14] for starters, if you want more sources. Also, your revision doesn't make sense. "Israeli response states that the operations were conducted during June and July of 1967 while the action was to ensure Israeli access to the Latrun route to Jerusalem" = ? And what does this have to do with the right of return? <eleland/talkedits> 09:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, the sources say the vilages were destroyed after the 1967 war not during. I am not sure why it is relevant to the issue of the article - does it change the so-called "right" ? making it stronger or weaker ? The issue of Right of return arose after the 1948 war. Zeq (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, I'm sorry to say, but I feel as if you are reading into it as tough I have malice intent. The text clearly admits (and makes perfect sense at) that Israel did destroy the villages as they say it was an action taken in order to hold control over the Latrun route to Jerusalem [15] - I really don't see the problem and it feels as though you're forcing an "anti" interpretation onto the text. As for the second question, the connection to right of return would be that these were Arab villages under the British Mandate and the Palestinian people claim a right to return to these villages... I only inspected the source and fixed the paragraph to be in accordance to that given reference. Does this clear up the issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a solution?

"A claim of international law violation is made regarding the destruction of three villages (Imwas, Yalu, Beit Nuba) from the Latrun area in those days. Israeli response asserts that the operations were conducted during June and July of 1967 with the intent to ensure Israeli access to the Latrun route to Jerusalem."

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I still wonder what the claim and counter claim has to do with the article subject. Zeq (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

According to those who defend the right of return point of view, the Palestinians who were living in these villages should receive the right to return their and receive compensation for the destruction of their houses (I assume something as the cost for their reconstruction ???). This just an example of Palestinans concerned by the topic. That should be rather in the background or somewhere in the article in a section named "who is concerned" or something like that.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou's response sounds pretty good. It sounds like you have grasped the essential dynamic behind positive resolutions here; namely, willingness to present conflicting historical claims as two opposing but valid views. If some critics have alleged some malice by a nation-state, there ought to be some response which can be presented on behalf of that national govt. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting on Eleland's response for what version/whether to insert the into the article or that there are still concerns. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what it has to do with the right of return, and the text doesn't make any sense anyway. You've juxtaposed a "claim of international law violation" with a "response" that doesn't have anything to do with international law. The previous version of the text mentioned that in 1967 hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled, and some villages were destroyed. From the "right of return" perspective that's all that's really relevant, it doesn't matter what strategic goal (Latrun corridor, etc) was in Israel's mind, or whether the demolitions violated international law or not. <eleland/talkedits> 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, I have your permission to remove the material cited in this book... i can live with that also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What? <eleland/talkedits> 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the material to be irrelevant, I'm willing to remove the text from the article... with your permission. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The expulsion of Palestinians and seizure / destruction of Palestinian property is relevant to the article and should not be removed, nor presented tendentiously as a "claim" when it is a universally acknowledged fact. I mean, Jaakobou, the JNF put up signs to that effect in Canada Park! You can't recast factual information as mere partisan "claims" because you don't like them. <eleland/talkedits> 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Eleland, I'm honestly not following you. What is it that you wish the paragraph to be, a partial one sided use of a source? please scroll up and review my suggestion as with keeping the source, there is nothing there that could suggest the places were not destroyed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, please re-join the discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Morris 2003 pg 590

I've reverted [16] the recent edit for two reasons.

1. I believe that phrasings such as "long claimed" propose a biased perspective on the beliefs of that side.
2. I've seen what seemed to be a false statement based off the Benny Morris book - there's no mention of 5 percent on page 590 and there would seem an opposite conclusion from reading the page than the one listed in the edit.
3. I'm sure no one truly appreciates edit summaries such as "really ugly piece of historical fabrication".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1 is an assertion of opinion with no explanation to back it.

2 is relevant and I owe an apology; that passage in Morris' book contains a general discussion of the causes of the exodus but does not contain the 5% figure. The 5% figure derives from a different Morris work, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948," originally published in Middle Eastern Studies in 1986 and collected in The Israel/Palestine Question, ed. I. Pappé 1999. I should have cited it as well, to make clear where the figure of 5% came from. It's worth mentioning that the version you've reverted to contains claims not found in their alleged sources, such as "the vast majority of Palestinians fled of their own accord," which the given (inadequate) source contradicts - and the most significant claims are not cited at all.

And for 3: I'm sure that liars and cheats don't appreciate being called liars or cheats. However, text which claims "Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled, but voluntary" is blatant fabrication, is most certainly ugly, and has no place on Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 01:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's a lie or a blatant fabrication, if it's the official view of an official agency on one side of this conflict, it certainly does have a place on Wikipedia. i'm a little surprised at you, but I'm assuming that you had not known that this had been stated in an official statement of the Israeli government. the view that it is a lie is merely one opinion among several. regardless of whether it is a lie, government positions are generally valid to be stated here, as government positions. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, as you know I respect your frequent insights and valuable insight. However, in this case, i feel you're way off. We really should not be putting any labels or characterizatuions on others' positions here. The position which you just described as a lie is part of the official positions of the Israeli government. Regardless of what you think of them, you are only hurting your own cause by refusing to admit their beliefs. i think the problem until now is that no one gave you sources based on the government itself, only independent scholars, whom you were reluctant to accept because doing so might make them seem credible. However, if we provide sourdces showing the government itself espouses this view, that only helps you, as it enables you to focus the discussion directly on the status of Israels' official positions.

Here therefore, are some texts and sources from the Israeli government, via its Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

The immediate source of the refugee problem was the Arabs' rejection in 1947 of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 - which would have partitioned the British Mandate area into an Arab state and a Jewish state - and the ensuing war they started in the hope of destroying Israel. Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting and the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule. A refugee problem would never have been created had this war not been forced upon Israel by the Arab countries and the local Palestinian leadership.

Israel does not bear responsibility for the creation or the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Thus it cannot declare, even as a gesture, responsibility for the problem. Israel, the Conflict and Peace: Answers to frequently asked questions, November 2007.

Here's another one:

The immediate cause of the problem was the Arabs' rejection in 1947 of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 - which would have partitioned the British Mandate area into an Arab state and a Jewish state - and the resulting war started by the Arabs in the hope of destroying the nascent Israeli state. Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting or the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule. A refugee problem would not have been created had this war not been forced upon Israel by the Arab countries and the local Arab leadership.

The Arab countries, with the sole exception of Jordan, have perpetuated the refugee problem to serve as a weapon in their struggle against Israel. The refugees continue to live in crowded camps, in poverty and despair. No attempt was made to integrate them into the various countries and communities in the region. Hundreds of thousands of refugees remain today in a number of Arab countries with no political, economic or social rights. Frequently Asked Questions About Israel, MFA website, 1 Nov 2001.

This is the kind of m,aterial which need to be included in order to provide an Israeli response which is clear, concise and relevantm, and which will make the article seem fair and balanced for both sides. As noted above, the Palestinian side loses nothing by allowing orfficial siraeli statements to be somewhat reflected here in this article. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to make a distinction here between saying that ultimate moral responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem lies with the Arab states, and saying that Palestinian Arabs were not expelled / did not flee as a direct result of Israeli military attacks.

The sources you quote here are not saying that the Palestinian Arabs left because they wanted to leave, they are not even saying that they left because of orders from the Arab states. Even the source which the old text relied on, an advocacy piece by Efraim Karsh, was not saying this. The reason is that it's a completely discredited view. Even the fiercest partisans of Israel do not advocate this view if they are sensible, because they don't want to look like hacks. The MFA acknowledges that "Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting and the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule." This is a literally true statement, although it is very weasel-worded. It does not deny the role of Israeli military operations in causing Palestinian flight, although it rhetorically downplays it.

It is entirely appropriate to include the Israeli POV that they were offering a decent peaceful compromise and the Arabs rejected it. You may not realize it, but this view is retrospectively adopted by many advocates for the Palestinians as well. But we need to avoid confusing this view, which is a moral argument, an opinion, with the ahistorical, false, factual claim that the Palestinians left of their own accord, or because the Arab leaders told them too. Those are two different things entirely. Benny Morris, for example, will happily blame the Arabs for the entire Palestinian refugee problem. He believes that Israel bears no responsibility for the refugees today, and that the "ethnic cleansing" (his term) of Palestine was entirely justified, and indeed a good and noble thing to do. That said, because he's at least minimally honest as a historian he also acknowledges that it was Zionist/IDF attacks which caused most Palestinian flight. It's also worth mentioning that, according to scholars of international law, the general right of return applies regardless of the reason for leaving; even if every single Palestinian had left voluntarily, believing that their absence would make it easier for the Arabs to beat the Jews, they'd still have a right to return.

I am happy to "write for the enemy" on this issue. Believe me, I can bash the Palestinian and Arab leadership with the best of them. To re-iterate, though, we need to distinguish between moral and political opinions like "Israel has no obligation to admit refugees because the refugees aren't their fault" and factual claims like "most Palestinians left as a result of Arab evacuation orders." There is a world of difference. <eleland/talkedits> 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair answer. actually, you are letting me know about some nuances and gradations which i didn't even know existed. so that's pretty good. however, I still feel there ought to be some way to include historians like Morris, etc, if they are genuinely published, and if they do have some constuency. can't we just say "According to some historians, there were ...._______", in other words, intorduce some opions from the Israeli side as being the views of only a few historians. that seems to me to be, as usual, the best way to handle any sensitive topics such as this one. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3 please avoid such statements in the future, we're just ouf of the arbcom and there was a decorum subsection in the proposed remedies.

2 please fix the references and the text to be factual to the cited materials.

1 please avoid insertion of personal opinions inside articles - "no explanation to back it", is exactly the feelings that were transmitted from the "long claimed" phrasing. you can use it if you are quoting a critic, not when you are citing their opinions/perspectives/statements.

please fix it [17]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If the issue is not fixed, I don't see an alternative to revert the edit or at the very least make a major edit on the text. Considering the involved editors, I'd expect Eleland and/or Ceedjee to work to fix the problems raised. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm reworking the paragraph and removing the following part from the text as it's not supported by the cited sources:

However, historians such as Benny Morris, Erskine Childers, and Walid Khalidi state that no evidence of widespread evacuation orders exists, and that Arab leaders in fact instructed the Palestinian Arabs to stay put. According to Morris, some 5% of the refugees fled on Arab orders, while the vast majority were either expelled by Israeli military operations, or fled in anticipation of Israeli attack.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) p.s. Also removed a few more texts which seemed out of place. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

per this diff: [18]

Nishidani, I can't seem to follow the reinsertion of name dropping and repetition. Can you please explain to me why you reinserted material already covered in the new version? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

reopened with a new diff here - #Recent changes II. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why edit-war the same war in different articles ?

See this edit: [19] - it shows clearly why instead of repeating, (in a non eneclopedic fashion) the same type of material in every article - we should just link to the relevant article: This article is a about the actuall term "Right of return". It should not deal with the causes for the exodus or the basatnee property laws but just link to them - they all have their own articles and the issues can be resolved in proper place.

We can make this article much shorter by focuing it on the issue called "Right of Retuen" Zeq (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, we should minimize the conflict areas on this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. May I make a suggestion? Maybe we/you could specify the issue(s) which are disputed across more than one article and then conduct a centralized discussion? Then either choose the most salient article to host the discussion, or you/we could use WP:IPCOLL for the conversation? Let me know what you think. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems in this article. If solved we can move forward to other smaller issues:

1. the article need to be structured in a way that would be NPOV by identifying each major POV as in here: [20]
2. issues - such as cause of the exosdus - which have their own articles should not be repeated here but use a wikilink. Zeq (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Zeq and Jaakobou. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The exodus and the causes of the exodus are of course part of the issue of the right of return. They contextualize them. This demand of return and/or compensations has a reason. When somebody asks the "right" to "go back" somewhere, it is important why he considers this "legitimate", why others do not and how and why he "left or were expelled" from there.

Note that there is no reason to "quarrel". Nothing in the current section is controversed or denyied by historians. Ceedjee (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy about everything in this article.

There is no need to duplicate the controversy in every article on the subject.

So the best way is to focus this article and wikilink to the other article (cause of the exodus) where the other conversy can be resolved (once). No need to have it here as well. This is for practical and encyclopedia reason - no one deny the context (which is the exodus itself). Zeq (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,

I know this topic extremely well. There is no controversed information controversed in section about the causes of the 1948 exodus in this article. And there is no duplication. (even if it is true there are controversies on the topic).

A wikipedia's article must be self-consistant and the background is very important to understand the issue.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some undisclosed meaning underneath your comments? If you're saying that the exodus took place only because of some sort of forcible expulsion by Israel, then there is some controversy, for the reasons which i have listed in the section above. we can use those texts as our sources. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no "undisclosed" meaning.

There is no controversy around the information that is currently in the article in the section "causes and responsibilities".

Ceedjee (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK so we have one side saying there is no controversy and another side saying there is. Zeq (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly :

What is not correct here :

The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict. Although historians now agree that Jewish military attacks were the main cause of the exodus there is still disagreement on whether this was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders, or whether it was the unintended result of the war.

Benny Morris, who analysed the Palestinian exodus, distinguises four waves. This factual part of his work is not criticized or put into questions by other historians. During the first phase, from December 1947 to March 1948, around 100,000 Palestinians left. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the situation had calmed down. From April to July, between 250,000 and 300,000 fled in front of Haganah offensives, mainly from the towns of Haïfa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, that lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants. Some expulsions arose, particularly along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem road and in Eastern Galilea. In the third phase, about 100,000 Palestinians became refugees. About 50,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by Israeli forces during Operation Danny, and most others during clearing operations performed by the IDF on its rear areas. During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee could remain in their homes. They later formed the core of the Arab Israelis. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to chase Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to chase the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee. This generated the fourth wave of the exodus, consisting of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinians. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled. During Operation Hiram, at least nine massacres of Arabs were performed by IDF soldiers. After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF cleared its borders, which resulted in the expulsion of around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, before we go on, could you please say which parts you specifically feel are controversial. I can gues, myself. there is no 100% agreement here on the use of "expulsion" to describe IDF actions. for other soruces, you can see my comments to Eleland, in the section above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there is no agreement to state the Palestinians were expelled. And *they* were not expelled. There is no agreement to state that they fled. And there is no agreement on that matter either.

There is no agreement between historians to give a "global" analysis and to "summarize" the sum of facts. That is what is written in the first paragraph...

But you will never find an historian and even a commentator who would write eg, that the Palestinians were not expelled of Lydda. If you don't agree, please, tell me who and where. I can say that it is in none of the books that are given on my user's page and that I never read this anywhere on wp. Ceedjee (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this is the kind of debate we had in other articles and I wonder why we should have it again and again. We should focus this article on the "Right of Return" and avoid here discussions on it's causes - this is well handled elsewhere. Zeq (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the context of the topic "right of return". cfr here above. Ceedjee (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, I do disagree. here's my example right here. It is from the Israeli government.

Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting or the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule. A refugee problem would not have been created had this war not been forced upon Israel by the Arab countries and the local Arab leadership.

The Arab countries, with the sole exception of Jordan, have perpetuated the refugee problem to serve as a weapon in their struggle against Israel. The refugees continue to live in crowded camps, in poverty and despair. No attempt was made to integrate them into the various countries and communities in the region. Hundreds of thousands of refugees remain today in a number of Arab countries with no political, economic or social rights. Frequently Asked Questions About Israel, MFA website, 1 Nov 2001.

That's pretty much. the point here is that there are two sides of everything. I am simply asking for the article to reflect that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sm89000, the "israeli government" is not an historians analysis and is not WP:RS enough to justify to claim there is controversy in historians analysis.

But if the Israeli government denies (for political reasons) to agree with what the historians say, then this should be explained in a dedicated section. But not in the factual background.

IDF means Israel Defense Forces. We are not going to write that "IDF is an expression used by Israel to name her army" because some commentators (eg adverse armies) consider it is an army of invasion.

Hamas and Hizbollah use to name themselves the word resistance (this is in the meaning of their acronym). Are we going to take this into account in all the analysis about their action.

Each pov must be weight by its relative relevance. I agree that if historians claim there were no expulsion at Lydda, then the word expelled must be removed. But I don't agree to balance the mind of historians on a historical issue and a government (whose all historians, not only the new ones) explain what happened in these words. Ceedjee (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The cat is out of the bag: Ceedjee is not really intersted in the POV of both sides. He claim that there is no controversy, that his view is supported by all historians and that the other side is simply not WP:RS. Zeq (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting unbelieveable. Ceedjee, I appreciate your positive comments to me earlier today. however, you really have no right to make the demands you are making. there are two sides to this issue. you refuse to hear the Israeli side expressed by the Israeli government. you refuse to hear the Israeli side from ISraeli historians. this is completely unacceptable. all we are asking is a simple expression of the Israeli side in this. that is extremely reasonable, and can easily be done. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not at all "historic" (although it has historic roots"). It is actually about the future - The issue is mostly legal and political. Resolution will be in the political areana. The demands (such as al-awda "no return = no peace") are in the realm of threats in the int'l politics (since "no peace = continued war"). We should really focus this article about the claim, the so-called right, the demands and the reason why they can not be accepted and what is offered instead. Zeq (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, if the cat is out of the bag, go back into the bag.

Steve,

I don't refuse to hear the official israeli government. Please read again.

The israeli government pov cannot be placed at the same level as historians for the matter of the background of the issue.

It is a minority view and it must go to a section controversy or israeli official pov on the refugee issue but not at the same level as historian minds on the matter.

There is not controversy among WP:RS sources on the issues of the context.

If you don't agree, that accept we do not refer to Israel any more but only to something else because 1,000,000,000 people on this planet name this the Zionist entity.

We have Israel and Zionist entity : I claim -> we chose Israel

We have historians analysis and Israeli official goverment pov : I claim -> we chose historians analysis.

All that is asked you is to refer to principles and not particular cases.

Starting now, if you don't agree with me, I will ask you to use the tools at our disposals with mediation Cabal. I refuse any mediation with Zeq. So I ask you to discuss with him before to see if he agrees to be represented by you. Ceedjee (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. also, however, i do accept your proposal that we call Israel the "Zionist entity." what a great proposal.

Now that we're in new-found agreement, how about you go over to the Israel article, and start implementing this change in terminology. Go ahead, change all occurences of the name "Israel." I'll stay here and watch. > thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that we change Israel to Zionist Entity because the lattest one is a minority pov, such as the one of the Israeli government concerning the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus that is relevant for the context of the right of return. Ceedjee (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. i appreciate your vcomment. i have withdrawn my previous comment (which was half joking anyway). thanks.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ceedje: there should be a redirect from "zionist entity" to Israel Zeq (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,

This is not what I wrote but I understand it is very important to you to make believe I hate Israel and I would be antisemite, which I am not. Ceedjee (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood Ceedjee (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not at all tried to hint anything about you so don't read into it more than it is. I only wrote that there should be a redirect from "zionist entity" to Israel Zeq (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No Problem. Zeq (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that Zionist entity would be a redirect to Israel. Zionist entity is a pejorative expression used by people who consider that Israel has no legitimity and that it is a temporary gain of Zionism. Israel is a well-established industrialised state, recognised by the international community but part of an international conflict. These are 2 different things. Ceedjee (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK we need to go back to the biz of turnning this article to NPOV . The start is by two actions:

1. the article need to be structured in a way that would be NPOV by identifying each major POV as in here: [21]
2. issues - such as cause of the exosdus - which have their own articles should not be repeated here but use a wikilink. Zeq (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1. it must be restructured

2. the background must be developed even more than it is currently. Lacks eg the story about the refugees of the arab world and what became the absentee's proprerties.

All this has been discussed. I gave all arguments. If you don't agree, find a representative and let's try the mediation cabal.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good (both ideas). feel free to start editing, if you want. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivially falsifiable nonsense

Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948.

...except that all sources agree that the refugee flight occurred in large part before the 15 May declaration of war and invasion. This is nonsense.

Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state

...except that the claim that evacuation orders played a significant role has never been substantiated, and is totally unsourced in the article. Nobody has ever provided the primary sources for this claim. Childers pointed this out almost 50 years ago. He was removed in the last blind reversion.

Still, such cases [of expulsion by Zionist militias] were relatively rare, and the vast majority of Palestinians fled of their own accord.<ref name = AJAC />

...except that the cited (nonscholarly) source [22] totally contradicts this; it actually describes "huge numbers of Palestinians ... driven out of their homes". And of course it contradicts itself too; if the flight was caused by "seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel," then the seven nations are responsible for the flight.

<eleland/talkedits> 14:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people consider intentionally partial citations as misleading.

"But huge numbers of Palestinians were also driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or, more actively, to prevent them from becoming citizens of the Jewish state."

This source seems to fit the rework on the text, not contradict it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continually waste time with this idiocy? The fact that Karsh assigns responsibility to Arab leaders and the Arab armies does not mean that he says they "fled of their own accord." Your accusation of "intentionally partial citations" is garbage. You're the one contradicting your own sources in the article. My patience with this nonsense is exhausted. You should have been banned from all Middle East articles months ago. <eleland/talkedits> 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just priceless: Jaakobou catches Eleland flagrantly misquoting a source, and then Eleland launches a vociferous personal attack on Jaakobou. --Leifern (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, please stop the personal attacks. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is some material from a notable source, the Israeli Foreign Minstry: "Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting or the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule." i would suggest we include this in order to provide balance. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a bit of a tag-team edit war feel with Eleland's revert reverted by Radical-Dreamer and then semi-reverted by Nishidani. I've asked Nishidani for an explanation to his edit [23], and I'm not sure we should make any edits before we hear his perspective and reasoning. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Israeli Foreign Ministry is a direct party to the political dispute on the right of return, and all the world knows exactly what Israel's general position is. The remark Steve, Sm8900 cites is a very tiresome rehash of a dead opinion, or piece of propaganda, no longer accepted by the majority of scholars, Israeli or other, working on the history of the problem. The citation adds nothing to what already exists in the text, sourced to scholars such as Karsh, Schechtman et al., and therefore is mere wadding from political sources that throws no light on the issue.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All the world may know what Israel's position is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't go in the article. A lot of things in an encyclopedia are things the world already knows. On a more general level, your recent revert seems to have created a duplication of material that you probably didn't intend. This article was a terrible mess already, and now its even worse. I think Steve's suggestion is a good one; basically to go back to Jaakabou's version but to cite to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the quoted statement. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, your rejection of the official statements of a sovereign national government is not really acceptable. sorry ,there is nothing which says Wikipedia is only open to scholarly works, or even that Wikiepedia is that good. (See WP:NGR.) there is no basis for rejecting quotes which are relevant and notable. please try to avoid undue criticism of well-intentioned statements here. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied below. We know the statement to be wrong certainly in the first part, and the text says as much. To repeat a falsehood, and indeed a standard 'public' cliché, long exposed by Israeli historians, but still repeated by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, is to make a mess of the page. There is absolutely nothing 'notable' about the remark. People need facts, they don't need harping Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As per above, i think I have erased the horrendous reduplication and retained the material I consider unjustifiably elided. As to the other point, most Wiki articles on this area are a laughing-stock, you yourself admit this one is a 'terrible mess'. There is a hugh amount of reduplication across articles and within articles. The problem is to make articles readable not by cramming on more subsidiary repetitive material from 'reliable sources' (I don't personally regard government sources as reliable: they are far less reliable than scholars under peer review), as Smith would do, but slimming things down so that one gets a neat straightforward presentation of the facts. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs clip merely repeats what is said several times in the text, and the first part is known to be an outright lie (Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request of Arab leaders) concocted at the time and thoroughly unmasked by Erskine Childers of the UN. Most scholars since 1961 have endorsed his findings. That it is repeated in official, or officially-sponsored sites endlessly, is proof of hasbara, certainly, and could be patched in there as a standard article of the usual disinformation circulating. But it is wholly inappropriate here since (a) it is false (b) already aired in the text (Karsh, Schechtman) (c) already disposed of as dated by scholars working under peer review. I call this the 'hammering effect': repeating clichés hoping that the thumping repetition will leave a trace in the reader's mind. That technique belongs to the arena of political oratory, and mediatic manipulation, not to an encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, calling Israel a liar is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and is inappropriate. Please stop doing it.

Exactly why are you telling us what the government of Israel is or is not? Do we pass judgements on Arab governments? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I don't think WP:CIVIL applies to governments.

And most people assume all governments lie to some extent.

And as I happened to mention to another editor recently, a good way to reduce tension is to just stop using words like "we", "side" and so on. Relata refero (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with talk) Steve, Sm8900 Come now, don't be factitious and disingenuous. All governments are constituted to defend national interests (often against other national interests). Notoriously, in the Elizabethan period, ambassadors were punningly described as people 'who lie abroad for their country'. In maliciously writing 'calling Israel a liar is a violation of WP:CIVIL', I would remind you that, at least officially, 'Israel' is not editing here, and therefore in calling a spade a spade, and noting that a recent cliché by the Israeli government you are apparently enamoured of, one which reflects a view used in early post 48 Zionist propaganda, and that even blind Freddy and his dog knows, after Morris etc., to be untrue, I am not branding Israel a 'liar' (nota bene:liars are persons, for the record, not nations), I am saying merely that official propaganda is careless with historical truth, in China, Japan, Australia, the USA, Saudi Arabia, Timbuctoo, etc.etc.etc., and the passage you would like to stuff in here is a good example of what scholars know to be historically untrue. The page itself notes that it is historically untrue. So why try to sneak in what the rest of the article tells the reader is a demonstrable falsehood, if not to consolidate with undue weight a spurious piece of propaganda we know to be such? On a further point of logic and grammar, don't tell me to 'please stop doing 'it' with regard to a single statement. 'Please stop doing it' refers to habitual behaviour, repeated insistently. The use of such language is malicious, seeding these pages with insinuations about habitual practices that are false.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Upon reading the article, however, I see there are some pro-Israel authorities mentioned and cited. So I can drop my request fopr now. However, i still see absolutely no basis for not simply noting the views of any official body in an objective way. This whole article relates to a concept which is also a major current political issue. so my request is not like, say, writing about official treatment of Native Americans, and then quoting the US Government from the 1880s. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

--Steve, Sm8900 You write: 'this not like, say, writing about official treatment of Native Americans' Actually it is. Read Klemperer's Berlin diaries for 1933 (November from memory = he knew what would hahpen, Palestinians would be turned into our modern Red Indians, familiar to him from American cinema) or the Biblical scholar Albright's remarks, written about the parallel between Biblical treatment of non-Jewish populations in the Book of Joshua and America's herding of Indians onto what the man called 'concentration camps' (reservations). He thought it all justified because 'superior people' historically have the right to kick out inferior races. Modern historians note that the great Biblical scholar's remarks on the destruction of native Canaanite communities contextualy parallel the crowding out of Palestinians under Zionism. I suggest you dip into David Shulman's recent Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine. reliable source, published by the Uni of Chicago.He doesn't give you the government's position. Unlike most in here, he actually witnesses day by day what occurs on the grounds, before newspapers and Wikipedia edit out of eyesightNishidani (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. would you mind telling me what happened to the $1 buillion sent by the EU for Palestinian development? is that Israel's fault? How about the never-ending diet of anti-Israel propoganda, which prevents any peaceful resolution? Is that israel's fault?

Actually, you're right. Israel does mistreat Palestinians to some extent, and that is wrong. However, Palestinian leaders then finish the no-win cycle by instilling attitudes which make certain that Palestinians can never negotiate or acheieve a reasonable lifestyle for themselves. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. Nishidani, you don't get to decide what is true and what is false, and what is a reliable source and what isn't. Your POV is represented in the article, and contrary views are to be represented as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder Nishadini : Is this the first time and the first article you get this feedback ? Zeq (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback,Zeq? Look up pabulum! G'nite.Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I did and you should look up WP:Own since this is what takes place in this and other articles on issues related to this one. Zeq (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent), Nishidani, I'd like to point out a few things to you:

1. Scholars typically rely on government sources for their scholarship - ranging from governmental commission reports, statistical abstracts, public records, etc. To say that scholars are more reliable than governments make no sense. What scholars are honor-bound to do, is to critically consider the reliability of government records. And in spite of all the invective against Israel politically, I have yet to see any substantiated case that the government of Israel has falsified records.
2. As a matter of fact the "new historians" that you appear to put so much stock in, rely heavily on government sources for their research. And several of them have been criticized and even discredited for shoddy scholarship.
3. The points that you're arguing are largely semantic. As has been pointed out many many times, refugees are usually created because they fear the consequences of war. While people disagree which party in the 1948 or 1967 war was "the aggressor," there can be no agreement about who chased whom out. We should explain the different points of view and explanations in the article, but that's all we can do.
4. My best sense of the historical research is that certain details are coming more into focus as different accounts are reconciled. We can only hope that in time an accurate version will become authoritative.

--Leifern (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leifern,

I would like to point out some disagreement concerning some of your comments ;-)

1. Scholars are 2nd sources. Governments reports or archives [at the time of the events] are 1st sources. Scholars analyse several 1st sources to check if they can be trusted. More they put them in their context and in their perspectives, which is extremally important. We are not professional on these issues and we should never use primary sources except when they are pointed out by scholars (On that last point, I know Nishidani disagrees).

1' About the falsifications I am embarrassed. Please see : Benny Morris, Falsifying the Record : A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948, University of California Press... For exemples he shows that the transcription of debates at Zionist congresses were censored and all references to the Transfer Idea removed. Some written and published versions of Memoirs were also falsified. But why to be amazed of that ? All governments and/or organisations do that.

2. Which ones ? For what records ? It is not because one historian is criticized for 5% of his work that all historians are discredited.

3. Refugees are created for many reasons. I can understand you don't know the information about the '48 refugees and you may not want to read about this. But today, there is a disagreement among scholars on some details, such the alleged planification of expulsions. And that was known, as Karsh points out, before the new historians. During operation Dani, Yoav and Hiram, numerous Palestinians were expelled. And after the war, Israel cleaned her borders from. There is no controversy about that. There is also a consensus that the first 70-100k left voluntary for the reason you give. For the 250-300k between April and June, there are controversies among scholars.

4. You read Teveth, didn't you ? ;-) For what happened between April and June, I would share your mind (but I didn't read everything on the issue) and even if this becomes more and more clear.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Leifern This would be interesting in a seminar for sophomores. I assumed as obvious all you have said, and much more, and I perhaps erred by not being more expansively explicit (I assume people here understand the obvious, and that therefore, harping on the obvious is a waste of words). My remarks, which have generated your lecture, were addressed specifically to Smith's suggestion that a piece of official 'bumf' be included here. The 'bumf' consisted of a government source which, despite what modern historians know, repeated unconscionably a 'political' cliché commonly repeated in Zionist propaganda, and Israeli postwar sources, for decades.

It is self-evident that government papers, official or otherwise, are consulted by scholars. Scholars however do not take, except when describing the 'official' line, these documents at face value. They know that, being documents by a particular party, democratically elected, speaking for that government's policies openly to the world, and justifying its position before the electorate or the world, those documents do not tell us much about the real reasoning behind the policy. They are political statements for public consumption, that are the result of intensive behind-the-scenes haggling by lobbies, factions, special interest groups etc. When I dismissed Smith's suggestion, I did so on obvious grounds: the link he was putting forward is dated, 'political', and repeats a position we know to be inexact, and to cram that in here is to give further voice to an opinion, as though it were interesting, which had already been shown, here and on other wiki pages, to merely reflect early Zionist fog. Those who wrote it are evidently quite familiar with the fact that it is a cliché specialists know to be false or misleading. But repeating the cliché has a functional value in politics and national image, and this political consequence accounts for the recirculation of this kind of nonsense.

The 'new historians' (a stupid term) you speak of illustrate the point. If you are familiar with Morris's work, for example, you will know that Morris had considerable trouble in getting access to the archives (government papers), and his work with them was hampered, once limited permission was gained, when various authorities realized the danger. Much of government policy and papers is kept under wraps for decades because, in giving leads on the real motives behind the edulcorated texts that form official-public policy, the myths that sustain parties, and interests, and official positions collapse. Morris's best books showed how the public material churned out by the Foreign Ministry and official sources, vastly simplified and distorted facts which were recorded in government archives.

You write:'And in spite of all the invective against Israel politically, I have yet to see any substantiated case that the government of Israel has falsified records.'

Why make an exception of Israel? I didn't single Israel out. I simply noted what any scholar knows: up-front rhetoric by a party in power has little to do with the internal dynamics of decision-making and policy-formation, and even less to do with the historical record they purport to describe.

You say the points I make are 'semantic' with the covert insinuation that 'semantic' is an antonym of 'substantial'. They aren't, and the point I make about 'bumf' versus 'archival sources' reflects a distinction between the semantics of public political discourse as opposed to the substance of political and material interests which, obscured from the public by politicians, are the object of the historical imagination. If you want an illustration, read up on the history of Moshe Sharett's diaries, and the intense pressure his family was subjected to when they were published in Hebrew. They provide an inside, day-by-day account of Cabinet tussles wholly out of keeping with the 'official' papers. In the Qibya massacre, they tell us that everything Ben-Gurion said at the time, and everything Ariel Sharon said then, and later in his autobiography, was false, often wittingly false, 'for reasons of state'. The same is true for the Lavon Affair. Nothing exceptional in this: Vietnam taught my generation of fogeys that listening to General Westmoreland at a press conference, or reading Robert McNamara's public statements, or those of the American government at the time, told you nothing of the truth, and, one of the best books on the period, Neil Sheehan's, sums up the public record pregnantly in its title, A Bright Shining Lie. This is standard in the world: when I studied Russian, we were given papers written by scholars to read on even unpolitical areas, like Lermontov's Hero of our times. Reading the first few pages, one quickly tired of the wooden language, and asked if there was something better. Our native-born teachers told us: the first two or three pages, and the last two, are invariably written with the government censors in mind, and thus pay lip-service to the political and ideological rhetoric required at the time. Learn to skip this, and sink you teeth into the middle pages, where the substance will be found.' Your generation followed an intensive 2 year public debate on Iraq and WMD that most experienced historians, and even diplomats, knew to be sheerPotemkin village window-dressing, having nothing to do with reality. Now, the historians tell us what the general public did not know, that all of this garbage on Fox News, the New York Times, Judith Miller, White House press conferences, etc., was just that, bluffs, rigged untruths to sell a decision made independently of the facts on the ground. 950 odd official restatements of untruths flooded the airwaves and the print machines month after month. That is 'government paper' and not worth the paper it's written on. To cite that rubbish as though it reflected a real problem or a belief dearly held by sincere officials, and not merely as evidence for the way the public was being conned by astute geopolitical messiahs wanting to 'fix' the information to rig public opinion, is to fall prey to the standard lie. Smith's source does this: it pushes a line that scholars can use on a book about Zionist propaganda; it cannot be used to throw light on the very real practical calculations made at the time by authorities wanting to seize the occasion of war to forge a state with a Jewish majority. Sorry for the lecture, but 'like calls to like'. There is a huge volume of information telling us the private reasons behind the Occupation: they are not what you find here. Here it is all 'official' worries about terrorism, and Israel's security. etc.etc. As Tom Segev has written: we have a deep contradiction in the Zionist project as a result of 1967, and until Israelis sort this out, and determine whether they want all of Palestine or 'just' 78%, they will continue to suffer from that dilemma, pitting messianic confusions about the nation against practical geopolitical interests in stability behind borders all the world, even the Arabs, have long recognized Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. As if to assist my point, in today's Haaretz, we finally read of government 'paper0 hidden from view for decades for 'security reasons' (i.e. internaional knowledge of the facts would weaken Israel's bargaining position in the West GBank and trouble its image in the world) confirms what we all knew, despite numerous government declarations, duly listed in Wiki, to the contrary:-

'More than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land that was temporarily seized by military order for "security purposes," according to a report by the Civil Administration that is being published here for the first time.

The settlements in question, which include Ariel, Kiryat Arba and Efrat, have tens of thousands of residents, and many have existed for decades. A security source termed this a "difficult statistic" that is liable to cause trouble for Israel both in Washington and its own courts.' Meron Rapoport, 'A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes' Haaretz 17/2/2009

The publication of this paper makes all off the official government paper used to confound understanding on the issue, 'bumf'.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes II

per this diff: [24]

Nishidani, I can't seem to follow the reinsertion of name dropping and repetition. Can you please explain to me why you reinserted material already covered in the previous new version? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I have now restored simply one paragraph, and I cannot see it as evincing either (a) name-dropping or (b)repetition. I found the reasons given for its elimination wholly spurious, indeed insultingly vague.(= 'Undid revision 191414769 by Eleland (talk) Unjustified deletion'). Look at User:Radical-Dreamer's record, it is not one distinguished by responsible editing. There is no reasoning here, simply an obiter dictum that accuses Eleland of unjustified editing, while failing to justify the revert, a contradiction in editorial ethics).

The whole article, is, one editor has just remarked, a mess as it stands in either version, and, more importantly, is grossly repetitive. If you hack out one paragraph on the grounds of repetitiveness, others will hack out other paragraphs for similar reasons. You cannot reprove others for restoring material you consider repetitive, while failing to reorganize and restructure a page that itself is a monument to repetitiveness. If you allow this, it means 'repetitions' are of two kinds, those you like and those you dislike and therefore eliminate, while defending the former. Unbalanced editing in short.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that now that User:Radical-Dreamer is stalking User:Eleland, one more instance being at Benny Morris. (17:58, 16 February 2008 Radical-Dreamer (Talk | contribs) (16,160 bytes) (Undid revision 191853591 by Eleland (talk) POV) (undo) ) All the more reason then for everyone to be very wary of any edit that person makes: they are self-evidently edits motivated by animus against specific people, and are not directed to the text.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, your edits that duplicated the Eleland edit messed up the article by creating duplications on the issue of Right of Return. It was also edit-warrish since it was a 3rd revert to the article but this is besides the point.

The paragraph "However, the majority of Israelis..." is not based on the historical perspectives of Joseph Schechtman or Efraim Karsh personally, and they are not "the stars" (i.e. name dropping) of the reasoning/discussions made by the majority of Israelis.

Another reason the text was changed was use of a source (Morris 2003 pg 590) to say something that is not written in that source; and your edit [25] actually reinserted falsely cited material. (see: Talk:Palestinian_right_of_return#Morris_2003_pg_590)

I can't recall defending any repetition and I can only start working and bettering the article from where I've started working... that is, if editors won't revert my work on sight without being part of the talk page discussions.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in having back the cleaner version I worked into the article (that was approved by 3 other editors). [26] And we can work your concerns, as you make them, into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misapprehend. While restoring a piece of background information unaccountably (i.e. nothing like an explanation given, and no explanation following up on this page) excised from the article, my mouse slipped and I doubled up part of the text. When my attention was drawn to this, I self-reverted, and performed the edit correctly., i.e. I restored the information User:Radical-Dreamer had removed (contextually, he has a bad edit record, constantly blanks his pages to obscure that record, and jumps into pages he otherwise shows no interest in. Objectively he seems simply to have opted to join in a tag-team effort against Eleland) As to your specific points:-

'The paragraph "However, the majority of Israelis..." is not based on the historical perspectives of Joseph Schechtman or Efraim Karsh personally, and they are not "the stars" (i.e. name dropping) of the reasoning/discussions made by the majority of Israelis.'

You once called me a 'language-nut' (and asked for help because of my linguistic fixations,: I appreciated the comment). Well, as per reputation, the paragraph above is incomprehensible, if grammatical, because there is no suggestion whatever that 'the majority of Israelis' got their perspectives from Schechtman and Karsh. There is no mention of 'stars' either. I'm afraid unless you can address the text's meanings in a logical fashion, I cannot follow your reasoning, and therefore cannot respond.

As to the Benny Morris quote, you're right, the page referred to does not mention 5%. I have therefore corrected the page (589, not 590)in the light of what he does indeed write there.

As to restoring the page you prefer as 'cleaner'. Might I note that it has several serious errors of phrasing and syntax, which, as far as I can perceive, were due to your edit, things which have been, in the meantime, fixed by a few of us here? Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Front Image concearns II

I'm really not pleased with the use of a random anonymous flicker image. I trust there are better Palestinian artists out there - and I'd like to see a more representative work by one of them on the cover of this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Justification edit

My concerns with the text was that "they justify..." is implicitly POV and I wished to correct the phrasing to be less judgmental of their positions and reasoning. As they say, leave it to the reader to decide.

I've contacted a native English speaker to fix the grammar issue and they've suggested the recent copy edit I've inserted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No one (Arab or Jew) has a "right of return".

No one (Arab or Jew) has a "right of return". Jews who fled Arab persecution from 1948 to 1956 should have no right of return to Arab lands, and Arabs who ran away in 1948 and 1967 should have no right of return either. This should end all argument. Yet the Jews accept this judgment, while the Arabs reject EVERYTHING. - Walid Shoebat [27] Zeq (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to anything in particular or is this just WP:SOAP? pedro gonnet - talk - 12.03.2008 20:48

This is a valid view expressed by many Jews from Arab lands and in this case by an Arab mlsim as well. Do you see this view in the article ? Zeq (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're concerned about WP:SOAP, why don't you go chastise this individual; his speech is undoubtedly the most egregious example of WP:SOAP I've seen on this talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is interesting...so the Palesitnians cannot return after a few decades, BUT Jews can re-immigrate after 2000(!!!) years?

I find Zionists to be comedic in their arguments, they are almost always self-defeating.LegendaryHammy (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• welcome back. I am glad you decided to join us again. Zeq (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the other way around? How can Palestinians deny the Jews' right of return? If a few hundred more years pass, will the Palestinian drop their claim then? Amoruso (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe Zeq argue that this information should be added to the article : "some xxx, such as Walid Shoebat, argue that an issue to the conflict would be the mutual renouncement to the right of return : Arab Palestinians who fled and were expelled from Palestine in 48 and Jews who fled or were expelled from Arab lands in the following years"... Ceedjee (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that everyone thinks all of the Jews left Israel and only came back in 1948. Jewish majorities existed in many areas before 1948, comparing jews to colonizers sounds politically motivated. Colonizers come to pay back their sponsor country. --Saxophonemn (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

Palestinians own Palestine that's why, it's up to them who should be allowed to enter their country for centuries or not. Would anyone question Britains' right to deny 50 million Americans or 20 million Australians to move to Britain en masse, because they have British heritage? No. Britain has every right to refuse or accept anyone. The Palestinians have the exact same right. Besides, Jews were moving to Jerusalem for centuries, Arabs are the ones who lifted the ban (by Eastern Christian Byzantines) on Jews going to Jerusalem and there was already a Jewish community in Palestine before Zionism. Palestinians of all religions living FAR FAR more peacefully than now. The problem was when GREEDY Jews wanted to OWN EVERYTHING, and steal the rights of the majority. The only reason that Jews were even in Jerusalem is because Arabs since the very beginning let them. Then they stabbed them in the back with Zionism. Infact Jews have made it worse now, the inevitable liberation of Palestine (Arabs usually win in the end, it took almost 100 years to kick out crusaders, but there is no time limit for justice) will result in the absolute opposite of a Law of Return, more like a compulsory banning of Jews from Palestine for a very long time, as punishment, and deservingly so, until they finally learn their lesson, that robbing from the hand that fed you for millenia will not be forgotten, nor tolerated. The Jewish religion is not a nation, it's an ideology, like communism, or nazism, it has no inherent RIGHT to a state. --LegendaryHammy (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you suggest to add : "Jews are bad guys". Why not ? Could you source this ? Txh. Ceedjee (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Playing the anti-semite card is old and boring. Try something more relevant. --LegendaryHammy (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ACTUALLY IT'S ISRAELIS/JEWS own ISRAEL/JUDEA that's why, it's up to them who should be allowed to enter their country for centuries or not. Palestine is not a nation, it's a region, named after the ROMANS. And Palestinians aren't a people, they're syrians and other arabs who flocked to the JEWISH ISRAEL. And Jews, the only people who EVER had a nation in Israel (what you call palestine after the roman-named region) usually do win... it's called the state of israel after 2000 years. 79.176.107.215 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What was hunky dory before Israel? Arab-Jewish history is rife of Arab massacres on Jews. It's merely a myth that Jews spoiled the status quo to set off Arab aggression. --Saxophonemn (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

This article is marked for the possibility of being too long, and that doesn't make sense because this is easily one of the biggest problems in the Middle East. Also, how is length an issue? I would be disappointed if this article was shortened; I feel this length is proportionate to the seriousness and importance of the matter. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles are usually marked as being too long because they slow down web browsers or on older browsers may even break, prohibiting editing on those browsers. Information can be placed in sub-articles, retaining useful information whilst decentralising it. Besides, Wikipedia isn't about 'seriousness' and 'importance' but stating facts. Generally when a topical article gets large it is because it is filled with non-encyclopaedic content. -Rushyo (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did Arab countries vote against resolution 194?

Why did they vote against it? And why did Israel vote for it? This is something that should be explained in the article. 131.174.204.147 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Integrate Scope of Issue with Arguments for and against?

While this article isn't necessarily too long, it is clear that these two sections are redundant. Also the first argument should be of those making the claim and the second of those rejecting it. Carol Moore 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

UNGAR 181, Part I, s.C, Ch.3(1)

--Etzel48 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Why is it that every time I add in material on the existance and the effect of the relevant part of UNGAR 181(I)(C), Ch.3(1):

Chapter 3

Citizenship, international conventions and financial obligations

1. Citizenship.
Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.

That my edit is deleted? I know that the definition(s) provided above detailing who is and who is not entitled to Israeli/Palestinian Citizenship (thereby limiting the 'right to return' to each) will not be welcomed by some, but surely that is not sufficient reason to remove the material from an encyclopedia? In a similar vein, it could not possibly be that the material was deleted because it provides a complete and disconcertingly direct answer to the oft-repeated, tenditious claims about the effects of UNGAR 194, Art.11, could it? The original purpose of the above cited paragraph was clearly to preclude the disentitlement of Palestinian Arabs due to continued Jewish Immigration, by ensuring that the essential character of each State could not be altered by mass migration of the opposing ethnic group into that State. The fact that one side now intends to try and uphold a later UN Resolution to have precisely this effect is undone by the fact that the UN forsaw and forestalled the problem in 1947. This is seriously important stuff, it is newly rediscovered, yes. But it is still based directly upon International Legal Principles and primary UN Materials. The wording of which is clear and unequivocal, the purpose of the same is fairly transparent as are the effects thereof.

Quite frankly, I regard the conclusions drawn from the above by myself to be essentially beyond serious argument. In fact, I'd have to suggest that where as here, the UN Memeber States directed their attention to the specific aspects of the Resolution and the effects of the same, the likely outcome is a foregone conclusion, which must be contrasted to the rather long bow drawn from UNGAR 194, Art.11.*

• To succeed in an argument that the majority of the UN Member States failed to consider the likely consequence of allowing unlimited resettlement of Palestinian Arabs within the boundaries of the Jewish State, one would have to overcome both UNGAR 181 (above) and the fact that the UN saw the need to separate the two under the partition plan in the first place. Thus the argument is, in strictly legal terms, virtually untenable and destined to fail at the first hurdle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etzel48 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) --Etzel48 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this and don't have time to check out all the facts but:

• It seems there should be a section on all important, relevant UN resolutions.
• However, they should be summarized as much as possible, without important points being left out. Frankly, I don't understand the implication of your long quote, or your explanation. The right of return is about those Arab citizens who mostly were driven out. Are you trying to say that their millions of children and grandchildren don't have a right to return? I don't think that can be implied from that Resolution, which would make it irrelevant to this article.
• Actually looking at it some more, I realize the problem is simply you are engaging in WP:original research - coming to your own conclusions, just doing your own essay, as other person put it.
• If you can come up with some WP:Reliable Source that asserts or reports on high profile assertions this (refugees returning) is an issue, then it is encyclopedic. Though I'm sure counter-arguments can be found in such case.
• But let's face it, the UN couldn't stop Arab Israeli women from having 2 or 3 or 4 times as many children over the last 60 years as Jewish women, so it remains pretty much a moot point. Carol Moore 00:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Well, why would anyone be entitled to return to a State in which they are not entitled to citizenship from a State where they are entitled/automatically granted citizenship? For Arabs living within the boundaries (such as the West Bank / Gaza) of the '48 Arab State in 1993 (when each party recognised the other) - they have Palestinian citizenship automatically and are automatically disqualified from opting for Israeli citizenship.

As to UNGAR 194, I defy anybody to demonstrate where the UNGA directed it's mind to and expressly, explicitly and intentionally overrode the consequences and the outcomes attached to UNGAR 181, which it enafledcted only a year earlier and presumably were aware of the full consequences thereof.

As there is nothing in UNGAR 194 to demonstrate such an intention, using the general principles of International Law, the later in time is construed as being subject to the specific provisions of the earlier in time.

Do the Palestinian people and their descendants who fled / were forced out have rights, yes. Are they entitled to a State, yes. Are they entitled to return to Israel, no. --Etzel48 (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PS Do you really think that the Arab Israeli's will welcome their brethren with open arms? The majority of them are too scared to visit the West Bank/Gaza for fear of being beaten to death as collaborators, so I'd have to suggest not.

PPS It is time, finally, to deal with UNGAR 194. Let the world get past the idiotic assertion that a resolution can be read in a vacuum unaffected by proceeding resolutions by the same body and see it for what it is, a very large, very forbidding mountain which has been made of a very small, almost insignificant molehill. Perhaps once the disinformation campaign is shown for what it is, the peace process can be succesfully concluded.--Etzel48 (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate the most important point: You are engaging in WP:original research - coming to your own conclusions, just doing your own essay, as other person put it. If you can come up with some WP:Reliable Source that asserts or reports on high profile assertions any interpretation is an issue, then it is encyclopedic. Though I'm sure counter-arguments can be found in such case. Your arguments above obviously are just personal opinion. Please study Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines. Carol Moore 17:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}