![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I stumbled across this source from the Forced Migration Review by University of Oxford's Department of International Development (ODID). It's from 2006 but is has about 30 high quality articles covering various aspects of Palestinian displacement. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Very biased and one-sided article, e.g. the section "Israeli view" cites people who question the official Israeli position. No where in the article is mentioned, that no other group of refugees is able to inherit their refugee status to their children, but the Palestinians. -- 78.104.63.52 ( talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, article does not provide any legal grounds of claimed, in the very first sentence of the article actually, expansion of refugee status to descendants of Palestinian refugees. Would suggest to elaborate on this item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.114.130 ( talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is, actually. I do no share an opinion that descendants are refugees. So, whoever, claims they are, as the current text states, should provide "reliable source(s)" in support of his opinion not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.114.130 ( talk) 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
For reasons of political dispute or disagreement, Paul Kuiper has decided that my relevant contributions on the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian people's movement should be removed as "extreme POV". Paul may politically disagree with the publication of these historical facts, but that alone does not make them "POV". I consider it very relevant to mention the Jewish refugees from the 1948 war, in particular since their number exceeds that of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Also, it can not be denied that the Palestinian people's movement which was founded by Amin al Husseini is fundamentally hateful of Jews and keeps discriminating against them. I think that it is very important to write about the fact of this Palestinian hatred towards Jews, since it provides the motive. In its present form, without my contributions, this article appears to blame Israel for the plight of both the Arabs and the Jews, while it clears the Arabs of all wrongdoing, even though the Arab wrongdoing is very well documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. Come-on, guys, let's get real! Just calling my contribution "POV", so you can eliminate it, without any explanation WHY you think so, is NOT in the spirit of peace, democracy and/or Wikipedia. -- Uruandimi ( talk) 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This entry must be re-written or immediately removed, since it does not comply with Wikipedia's most basic standards. The dubious term "Palestinian" is used even though this denomination, both as a noun and as an adjective, is fictive, fraudulent and misleading. There is absolutely no evidence that the exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity, as it has been taken for granted in the past four decades, ever existed in history before 1964 (when the Palestine Liberation Organisation was founded). Nor is there any legal precedent for the retro-active imposition of a national identity upon only one group among a population. No exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity existed when the leaders and members of the Arab political movement - who later called themselves "the Palestinians" - fled or were expelled from parts of the British Mandate of Palestine, shortly before or after the sovereign State of Israel was founded there. In order for this entry to comply with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, NPOV, etc., I suggest to replace the discriminatory, utterly fraudulent denomination "Palestinian(s)" by "Arab(s)". -- Uruandimi ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)"Ever since 1964, when the PLO was founded, the denomination 'Palestinian' commonly applies to an Arab, non-Jewish community. However, this is a reversal of the previous custom. During the British Mandate (1917-1948), all inhabitants could actually be viewed as Palestinians regardless of their background or religion, but in daily practice this name applied almost exclusively to Jews. Evidence of this can be found in back-issues of The Palestine Post, at the time a widely read English-language daily newspaper founded by Jewish journalist Gershon Agron in 1932, which changed its name to The Jerusalem Post in 1950. For exaple, on December 4, 1939, the Palestine Post reported on the increased yearly amount of alcohol consumed by Palestinians. Obviously, the newspaper does not refer here to the predominantly Muslim Arabs, but to the Jewish inhabitants of Mandate-era Palestine."
I had wanted to post the above, originally with external url links to both the Palestine Post and its article. However, WP does not accept these links, citing that they are 'blacklisted'. Are you kidding me - an entire newspaper blacklisted? Anybody can find this Palestine Post article titled 'Palestinians drink more' (and many others about the Palestinians of that time) on the internet - outside of WP. Perhaps I am making a mistake here. Can somebody assist me in this? I do have sources for the paragraph I wish to add, but of course this does not help when such sources are not allowed. -- Uruandimi ( talk) 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The meaning of "Palestinian" is discussed at Palestinian people which says (on the issue of Jews and Palestinians):
If you wish to amplify this information with factual statements or attributed statements of opinion, you should do so there.-- Carwil ( talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This material is in fact about the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas, and belongs on their page. Further, no one's "internal attitudes … are … governed by … official documents." This material is not about Palestinian refugees, nor do they reflect universal views of Palestinian refugees. Further, the role of the PLO covenant and the Hamas covenant in the politics of these organizations are the subject of extensive debate, which does not belong here per WP:COATRACK. I stated as much in my revert, and need User:Uruandimi to discuss or retract this material:
Thanks.-- Carwil ( talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
moved from my talk page Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sean, it may seem that "People are getting less smart every day" but I think that the observation itself points in the opposite direction. You have just removed my text on Palestinian Arab policies, without first discussing this with me. I find this rather rude and in contrast with you, I think the official Palestinian Arab policies are very relevant. For the past sixty years, the refugees have been learning the PLO Covenant in their schools, they have heard it on their TV sets and in their mosques. They think that these policies are actually true and are willing to act on them. They do not dare criticize these policy statements, that is the scary part. Are the Palestinian Arabs "getting less smart every day"? I don't know, but I think that Wikipedia is not obliged in any way to believe what the PLO Covenant has been saying for all this time. It is Wikipedia's task not to adopt any political position towards Israel, but to neutrally and objectively report on people's common opinions and policies, instead of brushing them under the carpet. Soon, I will wish to return the segment you have removed, but you can do that too. Greetings! -- Uruandimi ( talk) 08:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's an example of how not to engage in coat-racking material on this page.
Clear? Simple? Okay, so I'm not going to respond to your political views anymore. Just your sourced edits.-- Carwil ( talk) 15:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Uruandimi states at WP:AE#Statement by Uruandimi:
Uruandimi, it may seem reasonable as a newcomer that arguments like WP:RS are "as good for the goose as they are for the gander," but this is not actually true on Wikipedia. Instead, we need reliable sources that show relevance to included contentious material, not to exclude it. See policy on the burden of proof:
On the Charter itself, it's worth noting that the articles being cited here, which have no clear relevance to refugees, were ordered removed by the Palestinian National Council, a body which has a majority of Palestinian refugee representation. However, this is discussed on the page about the Charter, where it belongs.-- Carwil ( talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A neutral representation of history means including all known facts. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that the Palestinian refugee problem was largely caused by some evil Jewish leaders. Rather, the opposite seems to be true. From the '20s and until today, Arab leaders have not stopped to attack and denounce Israel and its Jewish population. Thus, there is an imbalance here, when one compares the media reports of such attacks and denounciations with what is written here. This people's encyclopedia MUST inform the public about the start and the existence of the Palestinian people's movement. Under Husseini (dubbed 'the Arab Hitler' by the Brits), this organization acted to murder as many Jews as possible in preparation for the Caliphate. I would consider it completely amiss to NOT mention Husseini's name in this context. Firstly, Husseini was, historically, the FOUNDER of the Arab "resistance" (a euphemism for jihad). Secondly, he was the highest leader of the Palestinian Arabs and as such he was the major force tearing the Arab-Jewish society of Palestine apart during the entire period of 1920-1948. -- 212.64.94.231 ( talk) 20:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Timeline Are the real Palestinian as a people a subject of identity and historical theft by arabic people? "10th-7th centuries BC: Philistines lose most of their distinctive culture and absorb that of surrounding peoples" and also impossible too identify after that they did not having a nation or soverignty since 7th BC. For more then 2700 years constantly conquered and taken by their neighbour just too mention Jewes, Rome, Byzantium, Mamelucks, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, and many many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.236.179 ( talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions that when Jordan annexed the West Bank in '48, most Arabs in the West Bank were given citizenship. So how does this explain how there are at least 2 million stateless Palestinians in the West Bank currently. I know recent reports have said that Jordan has begun revoking citizenship,but that is not happening at the magnitude needed to create the millions of stateless West Bank Palestinians there are today. So at what point did all these Palestinians lose their Jordanian citizenship? Or was it not passed on to progeny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.133.167 ( talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
in 1988, Jordan decided to disengage from the west bank. depriving west bankers of their citizenship. jordan did that in order to opened the way for the establishment of palestinian political entity. this can be found in "Palestinians and Jordanians: A Crisis of Identity" an article by Laurie A. Brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.169.168 ( talk) 09:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit which oddly asserts that WND may be used if accurately sourced and for specific facts or opinions found there based on "many" discussion at RS/N. You cannot use unreliable sources as reliable "for their own views", if a source is not reliable it may not be cited. WND is not a reliable source and its use in an article that has actual quality sources about, books published by university presses and peer reviewed journal articles, is asinine. Add to the fact that Farrah's view is absurd and directly contradicted by countless high quality sources and you get a rather obvious instance of a user attempting to side step the reliable source requirement for Wikipedia content. This is not much better than citing material to Stormfront in the article Israel. Users should be ashamed of themselves when they put such crap into articles. nableezy - 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee rights, was adopted 11t Dec 1948, 12 months before UNRWA was established later 8th Dec 1949. Secondary Sources citing UNRWA figures in relationship to UNGA res 194, are unreliable on the point.
Primary Source Document: For the purpose of finding accurate Secondary Sources ( http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7)
Secondary Source: [1] ... pages=38, 19
Suggestion: Remove all unreliable content ... talknic ( talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The present version, resulting from edits by Talknic, appears to be some sort of legal argument about what various UN resolutions say. I think it makes this a very difficult article to read for somebody who comes here looking for information about "Palestinian refugees". The old version starts, appropriately, with a clear explanation of what this article talks about. Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No other definition is mentioned. Jolinski demands the removal of the UN definition used in 1948 [3] amongst other information. Preferring the misinformation carried by the current version and by which readers might get the impression the UNRWA numbers are for RoR to Israel.
The UNRWA definition does not cover final status. Readers should be afforded this knowledge at the outset, in the lede and be given the UN definition used in 1948, which included Jewish refugees from Palestine [2] ... 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Manual restore instituted per the above discussion, pending collaboration on further improvement. New discussion listed tending those improvements ... talknic ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Suggest: Creating New Section on definition argument using some of the dialogue which we can glean from an old version. Replacement of any Primary Sources. Clean up reference citations etc. ... talknic ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The current lede is very problematic. Instead of explaining what Palestinian refugees are, it immediately starts talking about resolution 194.
"The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees accepted by the drafters of UNGA Res 194, as confirmed by the UNCCP[3], included Arabs whose normal places of residence was in Israel and Jews who had their homes in Arab Palestine, such as the those from the Jewish quarter of the Old City. UN Resolution 194 was adopted on of 11 December 1948, calling for the return of refugees from the ongoing Arab-Israeli hostilities. It forms the basis of the Palestinian claim for RoR."
Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This becomes especially problematic when one realizes that resolution 194 does not even contain a definition for refugees. Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence says: "Over 400,000 Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon,"
but one of the later paragraphs says: "There are about 350,000 non-citizen Palestinian refugees in Lebanon."
which seems to contradict the first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
UNGA res 194 adopted 11 December 1948 - UNRWA established 8 December 1949
Any NPOV RS calendar will show December 1948 is 12 months before December 1949!
UNGA res 194 has nothing to do with the UNRWA definition of refugee!
talknic (
talk)
14:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
First line says a P. refugee is "per" UNGA 194. 194 does not give a def of refugee. It makes a comment about them but only UNRWA defines them. 76.179.5.174 ( talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Palestine refugees, those whose normal place of residence was Palestine before May 15th 1948, includes Jewish folk. Palestinian refugees are refugees who're Palestinian.
UNGA res 302, establishing UNRWA, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
UNGA res 194, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
Readers should be informed
talknic (
talk)
01:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of the section "Jewish refugees from 1948 Palestine War" is not about the topic of this article and does not belong here. Almost all the persons mentioned came years after the 1948 war and were not refugees from it. The only Jewish refugees who belong here are those of East Jerusalem, the Etzion Bloc, and similar places in Palestine who had to leave those places. This article is not about Jews who came to Israel from faraway countries. Compare Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, which has hardly a passing mention of Palestinian refugees (nor should it). Zero talk 06:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I propose that Palestinian immigration (Israel) be merged into this article as it is actually about attempts by Palestinian refugees to return to what is now Israel. Please discuss. Downwoody ( talk) 01:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the lead:
On taking up citizenship in another country, refugees lose their refugee status. Decades ago, Jewish Palestinian refugees took up citizenship in Israel and in other countries; they and their descendants are no longer refugees.
Reasons: Palestinian refugees don't seem to loose their status when acquiring another citizenship. UNWRA information here (More than 2 million registered refugees live in Jordan. All Palestine refugees in Jordan have full citizenship, with the exception of almost 140,000 refugees originally from Gaza) seems to corroborate this article. Gugganij ( talk) 11:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I am a bit unhappy with the following statement in the article:
Registered descendants of UNRWA Palestine refugees, like “Nansen passport” and “Certificate of Eligibility” holders (the documents issued to those displaced by World War II) or like UNHCR refugees,[17] inherit the same Palestine refugee status as their male parent.
The source given refers to statutory refugees (CHAPTER II – INCLUSION CLAUSES A. Definitions (1) Statutory Refugees) and speaks of surviving child of a statutory refugees. The document doesn't say anything about the status of further generations. Therfore, the comparison between the status of Palestine refugees (with no limits on generations) and the status of statutory refugees seems to be misleading. Gugganij ( talk) 12:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of "Palestinian Refugees" are indeed Palestinian, but they would not be classified as 'refugees' in the context of UNHCR. The term "Palestinian Refugee" is _defined_ in the instrument promulgating the UNRWA. 174.44.174.192 ( talk) 14:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Did the Oslo accords recognize Fatah as the representative for the Palestinian people or Did it recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as such? Fatah is in the PLO but it is not the PLO. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 03:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I edited something in (look at article`s history for a note I left), however felt it was badly written, it is as follows:
However, according to chapter 3 of the 1948 UN partition plan
"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"
citations (tried to add most of them, some didn't work)
"UN Resolutions On The Partition Plan." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 9.4 (2002): 118. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014.
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253
Ma'oz, Moshe. "The UN Partition Resolution Of 1947: Why Was It Not Implemented?." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 9.4 (2002): 15. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014.
Nachmias, Nitza. "UNRWA Betrays Its Mission." Middle East Quarterly 19.4 (2012): 27-35. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014.
Rempel, Terry M. "Who Are Palestinian Refugees?." Forced Migration Review 26 (2006): 5-7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. - specifically in relation to the line: Israel as the state of origin for refugees, and the current statelessness (as to the question if Israel bears responsibility or not for the people)
Gal, Orit. "Israeli Perspectives On The Palestinian Refugee Issue." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 14-22. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014. (specifically the portion which refers to "How can a claim to possess an independent state yet also claim right of return to origin state be simultaneously be recognized")
Ben-Meir, Alon. "The Palestinian Refugees: A Reassessment And A Solution." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 65-71. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014. (Equal presentation of both sides positions and varying degrees of each side's position [either full repatriation or no return or compensation as acceptable etc.])
Resnick, Uri. "UNRWA's Self-Serving Agenda." Middle East Quarterly 19.4 (2012): 45-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014.
Abdelrazek, Adnan. "Israeli Violation Of UN Resolution 194 (III) And Others Pertaining To Palestinian Refugee Property." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 47-53. Business Source Complete. Web. June 2014. (speaks of property ownership rights in accordance to the laws of Israel but dependent on whether or not they are considered citizens with equal rights)
SANTOS, MADALENA. "Relations Of Ruling In The Colonial Present: An Intersectional View Of The Israeli Imaginary." Canadian Journal Of Sociology 38.4 (2013): 509-532. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. (referring to some reasoning of the opposition to return and demographic reasons groups within Israel may oppose more arab citizens than the current 1 in 5 ratio)
Rekhess, Elie. "The Arab Minority In Israel: Reconsidering The '1948 Paradigm'." Israel Studies 19.2 (2014): 187-217. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. (page 188, I saw the Original research reference and would apologize for not sourcing it, but the opinion was not my original research and rather something presented by Rekhess in their article)
varying views on the issue of citizenship --- Sabbagh, Clara, and Nura Resh. "Citizenship Orientations In A Divided Society: A Comparison Of Three Groups Of Israeli Junior-High Students—Secular Jews, Religious Jews, And Israeli Arabs." Education, Citizenship & Social Justice 9.1 (2014): 34. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 2014.
it seems as relevant information since it referred specifically to residents within the borders of the proposed states, is there any precedent for adding this? I realize it refers to jewish citizens of palestine as well, however the International zone was talked about in a separate charter as to the rights and definitions of the citizens of said zone, but in the end it looks like this is the basis of some of the claims to repatriate by palestinians and I assume at least some jews who fled jerusalem
Edit: I saw the original research notification for why it was removed, I have added the sources here (with last 3 as main sources, second to last page 188 as the origin of citizenship and whether or not refugees should have it), however have not edited it in or anything as I thought it would be better for people to just read this and decide for themselves on whether it should be added and if yes how and what to word it as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This was the definition accepted by the drafters of the resolution 194 for the purposes of defining the entire group of Palestinians who were entitled to the protection of the International Community
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |location=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Cite=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
The shorthand denomination "Palestinian" is discriminatory and ought to be changed into "Arab Palestinian". The shorthand name conveys the subtle message that "Palestinians" (of whom everybody knows they're definitely not Jewish) are the only legal heirs to the lands of Palestine. That pretense is patently false and in violation of the science of history which teaches that next to Arabs, Jews also have their roots in these grounds (some families never left), even if great numbers of Jews only arrived there at the end of the 19th century. To be sure, the Jewish inhabitants of the modern State of Israel are not going anywhere else. They and their forebears have complied with all the requirements of the 1920 San Remo Conference which granted them legal permission to settle the lands of Palestine. Both the Jewish presence and the State of Israel are definitely legit. Whereas the shorthand expression "Palestinians" questions the Jews' presence and Israel's legitimacy, in contrast, the full "Arab Palestinians" asserts the idea that Arabs and Jews can share these lands, or have adjacent states. I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion. Let us begin right here and change the name of this page into "Arab Palestinian refugee". -- Uruandimi ( talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This fails WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and probably a couple other policies I can't think of right now. "I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion." is POV-pushing, and is not welcome on wikipedia, much less in an area under arbitration for contentious editing. Please don't.-- Carwil ( talk) 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It is funny. Jews have the right of return to Israel for religious or ethnic (and sometimes cultural if they converted but where not descended of them) to Israel even though they may have never lived there and spent their entire lives in another nation. Meanwhile you tell people who actually grew up in these villages they are not allowed back and the decedents who had grandparents and parents who lived here can't go back, meanwhile Jews can say well my ancestor lived here 2000 years ago and can. Furthermore let's all just start tracing our roots to Africa and claim that land. Sigh. Do you see why there is more than one side? because the right of return allows some level of recognition that not only do the Jews have people who lived there but so do the Palestinians and both want to go back because their ancestors lived there, but only one can. To add to it people claim the Jews have a right but Palestinians don't since their ancestors moved in after the Jews left. Which makes no sense, because the concept of sovereignty and human rights is a modern era invention, back than the Romans kicked Jews out and others came and took what was left. Either you try to see both points of view and claims or you just pick one, railroad the other and continue division and POV in writing. While I speak of Palestinians it is not lost on me that Jews live there too now, but there is no reason why two groups of humans can't live there. After all, unlike animals we can talk, plan, cooperate, and think using a level of intelligence unrivaled, so how about we not get divided over trivial crap that makes us as stupid as cavemen while pretending we are civilized for falling into Human tribalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 ( talk) 06:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit was execrable because it restored what a sockpuppet had just put back in. But it is execrable because it revives an all-but-moribund meme, still in distribution only among polemical hacks, that was effectively destroyed by both Erskine Barton Childers and Walid Khalidi a half century ago, the former classically in back in 1961, in an article in The Spectator May 12, 1961. (Elizabeth Matthews (ed.) The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Parallel Discourses, Taylor & Francis 2011 p.41). Everyone editing these issues should have the basic knowledge to recognize obvious crap, vigorously rebutted by Michael Palumbo, Dan Kurzman and others, Benny Morris himself (who stated that no Arab authority issued "blanket instructions by radio or otherwise, to Palestine's Arabs to flee." See also his The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge UP 2005 pp.269-70). Everyone should look twice or three times before 'restoring' work done by an obsessive sockpuppet. Pull your socks up (i.e. revert that nonsense). Nishidani ( talk) 16:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"According to Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, the Reverend Karl Baehe, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, Alexander Galloway, then head of the UNRWA for Jordan, said ..."
I understand that this "according to" clause is there for proper attribution and NPOV, but it makes the sentence an unreadable mess. Can anyone think of a way to rephrase it so it will be clear that Alexander Galloway is the one who allegedly made the statement and the others only reported it ? One way to achieve it is to remove the "according to" portion, there is already a citation overkill for those interested to know who reported it. “ WarKosign ” 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Eethove and Zero0000: regarding this edit: the term "nakba" is not an English word, does not appear anywhere else in the article and is not neutral. More importantly, it is not even mentioned in the quoted source, so it's incorrect to say that the quote was made "dealing with the nakba". I suggest to replace it with "dealing with 1948 Palestinian exodus" which is the WP:COMMONNAME of the event. “ WarKosign ” 06:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand this is a controvertial issue. Still, I would like to understand if I'm wrong. Reading the article, I see it claims "Being the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited...", while at the same time it does not mention the impossibility for those refugees to come back to their original territory (as other refugees have). I don't want to enter on a discussion around the right to return, it is not my intent, and my apologies if it seems so. I just see that UN has provided the refugee status to those children of original refugees because of the special circumstance of the impossibility to come back (as eventually other refugees do, or at least can). I feel that not clarifying this issue makes it appear as an unjustified privilege (and therefore biased), while UN had its justification (which we can agree or not). There are plenty of sources for this and I could edit it, but being such controvertial article, I prefer to provide my suggestion here before editing directly. -- Samer.hc ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian refugee → Palestinian refugees – Page talks more about refugees. Suggest rename to Palestinian refugees and create section on definition term for Palestinian refugee, renamed. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Palestinian refugees. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The estimate of 711,000 implies accuracy when there is none. It is also based on a number given in 1950. Modern historical research has improved upon that number. Therefore, the number should reflect what current historians estimate the number to be. ImTheIP ( talk) 11:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Article says:
The source in the article is https://web.archive.org/web/20070404085820/http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=53213&d=21&m=10&y=2004 and it says:
A better source is required. Perhaps one that cites Arab League Resolution 1547 directly. ImTheIP ( talk) 00:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
“Pardes Hana Immigrant Camp, 1956”. > Correct to 1950 please. See German Wikipedia and picture details: made Dec. 1, 1950, so can’t be from 1956. – Fritz Jörn ( talk) 14:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I stumbled across this source from the Forced Migration Review by University of Oxford's Department of International Development (ODID). It's from 2006 but is has about 30 high quality articles covering various aspects of Palestinian displacement. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Very biased and one-sided article, e.g. the section "Israeli view" cites people who question the official Israeli position. No where in the article is mentioned, that no other group of refugees is able to inherit their refugee status to their children, but the Palestinians. -- 78.104.63.52 ( talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, article does not provide any legal grounds of claimed, in the very first sentence of the article actually, expansion of refugee status to descendants of Palestinian refugees. Would suggest to elaborate on this item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.114.130 ( talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is, actually. I do no share an opinion that descendants are refugees. So, whoever, claims they are, as the current text states, should provide "reliable source(s)" in support of his opinion not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.114.130 ( talk) 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
For reasons of political dispute or disagreement, Paul Kuiper has decided that my relevant contributions on the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian people's movement should be removed as "extreme POV". Paul may politically disagree with the publication of these historical facts, but that alone does not make them "POV". I consider it very relevant to mention the Jewish refugees from the 1948 war, in particular since their number exceeds that of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Also, it can not be denied that the Palestinian people's movement which was founded by Amin al Husseini is fundamentally hateful of Jews and keeps discriminating against them. I think that it is very important to write about the fact of this Palestinian hatred towards Jews, since it provides the motive. In its present form, without my contributions, this article appears to blame Israel for the plight of both the Arabs and the Jews, while it clears the Arabs of all wrongdoing, even though the Arab wrongdoing is very well documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. Come-on, guys, let's get real! Just calling my contribution "POV", so you can eliminate it, without any explanation WHY you think so, is NOT in the spirit of peace, democracy and/or Wikipedia. -- Uruandimi ( talk) 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This entry must be re-written or immediately removed, since it does not comply with Wikipedia's most basic standards. The dubious term "Palestinian" is used even though this denomination, both as a noun and as an adjective, is fictive, fraudulent and misleading. There is absolutely no evidence that the exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity, as it has been taken for granted in the past four decades, ever existed in history before 1964 (when the Palestine Liberation Organisation was founded). Nor is there any legal precedent for the retro-active imposition of a national identity upon only one group among a population. No exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity existed when the leaders and members of the Arab political movement - who later called themselves "the Palestinians" - fled or were expelled from parts of the British Mandate of Palestine, shortly before or after the sovereign State of Israel was founded there. In order for this entry to comply with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, NPOV, etc., I suggest to replace the discriminatory, utterly fraudulent denomination "Palestinian(s)" by "Arab(s)". -- Uruandimi ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)"Ever since 1964, when the PLO was founded, the denomination 'Palestinian' commonly applies to an Arab, non-Jewish community. However, this is a reversal of the previous custom. During the British Mandate (1917-1948), all inhabitants could actually be viewed as Palestinians regardless of their background or religion, but in daily practice this name applied almost exclusively to Jews. Evidence of this can be found in back-issues of The Palestine Post, at the time a widely read English-language daily newspaper founded by Jewish journalist Gershon Agron in 1932, which changed its name to The Jerusalem Post in 1950. For exaple, on December 4, 1939, the Palestine Post reported on the increased yearly amount of alcohol consumed by Palestinians. Obviously, the newspaper does not refer here to the predominantly Muslim Arabs, but to the Jewish inhabitants of Mandate-era Palestine."
I had wanted to post the above, originally with external url links to both the Palestine Post and its article. However, WP does not accept these links, citing that they are 'blacklisted'. Are you kidding me - an entire newspaper blacklisted? Anybody can find this Palestine Post article titled 'Palestinians drink more' (and many others about the Palestinians of that time) on the internet - outside of WP. Perhaps I am making a mistake here. Can somebody assist me in this? I do have sources for the paragraph I wish to add, but of course this does not help when such sources are not allowed. -- Uruandimi ( talk) 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The meaning of "Palestinian" is discussed at Palestinian people which says (on the issue of Jews and Palestinians):
If you wish to amplify this information with factual statements or attributed statements of opinion, you should do so there.-- Carwil ( talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This material is in fact about the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas, and belongs on their page. Further, no one's "internal attitudes … are … governed by … official documents." This material is not about Palestinian refugees, nor do they reflect universal views of Palestinian refugees. Further, the role of the PLO covenant and the Hamas covenant in the politics of these organizations are the subject of extensive debate, which does not belong here per WP:COATRACK. I stated as much in my revert, and need User:Uruandimi to discuss or retract this material:
Thanks.-- Carwil ( talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
moved from my talk page Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sean, it may seem that "People are getting less smart every day" but I think that the observation itself points in the opposite direction. You have just removed my text on Palestinian Arab policies, without first discussing this with me. I find this rather rude and in contrast with you, I think the official Palestinian Arab policies are very relevant. For the past sixty years, the refugees have been learning the PLO Covenant in their schools, they have heard it on their TV sets and in their mosques. They think that these policies are actually true and are willing to act on them. They do not dare criticize these policy statements, that is the scary part. Are the Palestinian Arabs "getting less smart every day"? I don't know, but I think that Wikipedia is not obliged in any way to believe what the PLO Covenant has been saying for all this time. It is Wikipedia's task not to adopt any political position towards Israel, but to neutrally and objectively report on people's common opinions and policies, instead of brushing them under the carpet. Soon, I will wish to return the segment you have removed, but you can do that too. Greetings! -- Uruandimi ( talk) 08:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's an example of how not to engage in coat-racking material on this page.
Clear? Simple? Okay, so I'm not going to respond to your political views anymore. Just your sourced edits.-- Carwil ( talk) 15:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Uruandimi states at WP:AE#Statement by Uruandimi:
Uruandimi, it may seem reasonable as a newcomer that arguments like WP:RS are "as good for the goose as they are for the gander," but this is not actually true on Wikipedia. Instead, we need reliable sources that show relevance to included contentious material, not to exclude it. See policy on the burden of proof:
On the Charter itself, it's worth noting that the articles being cited here, which have no clear relevance to refugees, were ordered removed by the Palestinian National Council, a body which has a majority of Palestinian refugee representation. However, this is discussed on the page about the Charter, where it belongs.-- Carwil ( talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A neutral representation of history means including all known facts. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that the Palestinian refugee problem was largely caused by some evil Jewish leaders. Rather, the opposite seems to be true. From the '20s and until today, Arab leaders have not stopped to attack and denounce Israel and its Jewish population. Thus, there is an imbalance here, when one compares the media reports of such attacks and denounciations with what is written here. This people's encyclopedia MUST inform the public about the start and the existence of the Palestinian people's movement. Under Husseini (dubbed 'the Arab Hitler' by the Brits), this organization acted to murder as many Jews as possible in preparation for the Caliphate. I would consider it completely amiss to NOT mention Husseini's name in this context. Firstly, Husseini was, historically, the FOUNDER of the Arab "resistance" (a euphemism for jihad). Secondly, he was the highest leader of the Palestinian Arabs and as such he was the major force tearing the Arab-Jewish society of Palestine apart during the entire period of 1920-1948. -- 212.64.94.231 ( talk) 20:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Timeline Are the real Palestinian as a people a subject of identity and historical theft by arabic people? "10th-7th centuries BC: Philistines lose most of their distinctive culture and absorb that of surrounding peoples" and also impossible too identify after that they did not having a nation or soverignty since 7th BC. For more then 2700 years constantly conquered and taken by their neighbour just too mention Jewes, Rome, Byzantium, Mamelucks, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, and many many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.236.179 ( talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions that when Jordan annexed the West Bank in '48, most Arabs in the West Bank were given citizenship. So how does this explain how there are at least 2 million stateless Palestinians in the West Bank currently. I know recent reports have said that Jordan has begun revoking citizenship,but that is not happening at the magnitude needed to create the millions of stateless West Bank Palestinians there are today. So at what point did all these Palestinians lose their Jordanian citizenship? Or was it not passed on to progeny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.133.167 ( talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
in 1988, Jordan decided to disengage from the west bank. depriving west bankers of their citizenship. jordan did that in order to opened the way for the establishment of palestinian political entity. this can be found in "Palestinians and Jordanians: A Crisis of Identity" an article by Laurie A. Brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.169.168 ( talk) 09:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit which oddly asserts that WND may be used if accurately sourced and for specific facts or opinions found there based on "many" discussion at RS/N. You cannot use unreliable sources as reliable "for their own views", if a source is not reliable it may not be cited. WND is not a reliable source and its use in an article that has actual quality sources about, books published by university presses and peer reviewed journal articles, is asinine. Add to the fact that Farrah's view is absurd and directly contradicted by countless high quality sources and you get a rather obvious instance of a user attempting to side step the reliable source requirement for Wikipedia content. This is not much better than citing material to Stormfront in the article Israel. Users should be ashamed of themselves when they put such crap into articles. nableezy - 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee rights, was adopted 11t Dec 1948, 12 months before UNRWA was established later 8th Dec 1949. Secondary Sources citing UNRWA figures in relationship to UNGA res 194, are unreliable on the point.
Primary Source Document: For the purpose of finding accurate Secondary Sources ( http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7)
Secondary Source: [1] ... pages=38, 19
Suggestion: Remove all unreliable content ... talknic ( talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The present version, resulting from edits by Talknic, appears to be some sort of legal argument about what various UN resolutions say. I think it makes this a very difficult article to read for somebody who comes here looking for information about "Palestinian refugees". The old version starts, appropriately, with a clear explanation of what this article talks about. Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No other definition is mentioned. Jolinski demands the removal of the UN definition used in 1948 [3] amongst other information. Preferring the misinformation carried by the current version and by which readers might get the impression the UNRWA numbers are for RoR to Israel.
The UNRWA definition does not cover final status. Readers should be afforded this knowledge at the outset, in the lede and be given the UN definition used in 1948, which included Jewish refugees from Palestine [2] ... 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Manual restore instituted per the above discussion, pending collaboration on further improvement. New discussion listed tending those improvements ... talknic ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Suggest: Creating New Section on definition argument using some of the dialogue which we can glean from an old version. Replacement of any Primary Sources. Clean up reference citations etc. ... talknic ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The current lede is very problematic. Instead of explaining what Palestinian refugees are, it immediately starts talking about resolution 194.
"The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees accepted by the drafters of UNGA Res 194, as confirmed by the UNCCP[3], included Arabs whose normal places of residence was in Israel and Jews who had their homes in Arab Palestine, such as the those from the Jewish quarter of the Old City. UN Resolution 194 was adopted on of 11 December 1948, calling for the return of refugees from the ongoing Arab-Israeli hostilities. It forms the basis of the Palestinian claim for RoR."
Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This becomes especially problematic when one realizes that resolution 194 does not even contain a definition for refugees. Jsolinsky ( talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence says: "Over 400,000 Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon,"
but one of the later paragraphs says: "There are about 350,000 non-citizen Palestinian refugees in Lebanon."
which seems to contradict the first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
UNGA res 194 adopted 11 December 1948 - UNRWA established 8 December 1949
Any NPOV RS calendar will show December 1948 is 12 months before December 1949!
UNGA res 194 has nothing to do with the UNRWA definition of refugee!
talknic (
talk)
14:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
First line says a P. refugee is "per" UNGA 194. 194 does not give a def of refugee. It makes a comment about them but only UNRWA defines them. 76.179.5.174 ( talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Palestine refugees, those whose normal place of residence was Palestine before May 15th 1948, includes Jewish folk. Palestinian refugees are refugees who're Palestinian.
UNGA res 302, establishing UNRWA, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
UNGA res 194, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
Readers should be informed
talknic (
talk)
01:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of the section "Jewish refugees from 1948 Palestine War" is not about the topic of this article and does not belong here. Almost all the persons mentioned came years after the 1948 war and were not refugees from it. The only Jewish refugees who belong here are those of East Jerusalem, the Etzion Bloc, and similar places in Palestine who had to leave those places. This article is not about Jews who came to Israel from faraway countries. Compare Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, which has hardly a passing mention of Palestinian refugees (nor should it). Zero talk 06:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I propose that Palestinian immigration (Israel) be merged into this article as it is actually about attempts by Palestinian refugees to return to what is now Israel. Please discuss. Downwoody ( talk) 01:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the lead:
On taking up citizenship in another country, refugees lose their refugee status. Decades ago, Jewish Palestinian refugees took up citizenship in Israel and in other countries; they and their descendants are no longer refugees.
Reasons: Palestinian refugees don't seem to loose their status when acquiring another citizenship. UNWRA information here (More than 2 million registered refugees live in Jordan. All Palestine refugees in Jordan have full citizenship, with the exception of almost 140,000 refugees originally from Gaza) seems to corroborate this article. Gugganij ( talk) 11:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I am a bit unhappy with the following statement in the article:
Registered descendants of UNRWA Palestine refugees, like “Nansen passport” and “Certificate of Eligibility” holders (the documents issued to those displaced by World War II) or like UNHCR refugees,[17] inherit the same Palestine refugee status as their male parent.
The source given refers to statutory refugees (CHAPTER II – INCLUSION CLAUSES A. Definitions (1) Statutory Refugees) and speaks of surviving child of a statutory refugees. The document doesn't say anything about the status of further generations. Therfore, the comparison between the status of Palestine refugees (with no limits on generations) and the status of statutory refugees seems to be misleading. Gugganij ( talk) 12:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of "Palestinian Refugees" are indeed Palestinian, but they would not be classified as 'refugees' in the context of UNHCR. The term "Palestinian Refugee" is _defined_ in the instrument promulgating the UNRWA. 174.44.174.192 ( talk) 14:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Did the Oslo accords recognize Fatah as the representative for the Palestinian people or Did it recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as such? Fatah is in the PLO but it is not the PLO. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 03:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I edited something in (look at article`s history for a note I left), however felt it was badly written, it is as follows:
However, according to chapter 3 of the 1948 UN partition plan
"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"
citations (tried to add most of them, some didn't work)
"UN Resolutions On The Partition Plan." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 9.4 (2002): 118. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014.
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253
Ma'oz, Moshe. "The UN Partition Resolution Of 1947: Why Was It Not Implemented?." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 9.4 (2002): 15. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014.
Nachmias, Nitza. "UNRWA Betrays Its Mission." Middle East Quarterly 19.4 (2012): 27-35. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014.
Rempel, Terry M. "Who Are Palestinian Refugees?." Forced Migration Review 26 (2006): 5-7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. - specifically in relation to the line: Israel as the state of origin for refugees, and the current statelessness (as to the question if Israel bears responsibility or not for the people)
Gal, Orit. "Israeli Perspectives On The Palestinian Refugee Issue." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 14-22. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014. (specifically the portion which refers to "How can a claim to possess an independent state yet also claim right of return to origin state be simultaneously be recognized")
Ben-Meir, Alon. "The Palestinian Refugees: A Reassessment And A Solution." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 65-71. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014. (Equal presentation of both sides positions and varying degrees of each side's position [either full repatriation or no return or compensation as acceptable etc.])
Resnick, Uri. "UNRWA's Self-Serving Agenda." Middle East Quarterly 19.4 (2012): 45-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014.
Abdelrazek, Adnan. "Israeli Violation Of UN Resolution 194 (III) And Others Pertaining To Palestinian Refugee Property." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 47-53. Business Source Complete. Web. June 2014. (speaks of property ownership rights in accordance to the laws of Israel but dependent on whether or not they are considered citizens with equal rights)
SANTOS, MADALENA. "Relations Of Ruling In The Colonial Present: An Intersectional View Of The Israeli Imaginary." Canadian Journal Of Sociology 38.4 (2013): 509-532. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. (referring to some reasoning of the opposition to return and demographic reasons groups within Israel may oppose more arab citizens than the current 1 in 5 ratio)
Rekhess, Elie. "The Arab Minority In Israel: Reconsidering The '1948 Paradigm'." Israel Studies 19.2 (2014): 187-217. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. (page 188, I saw the Original research reference and would apologize for not sourcing it, but the opinion was not my original research and rather something presented by Rekhess in their article)
varying views on the issue of citizenship --- Sabbagh, Clara, and Nura Resh. "Citizenship Orientations In A Divided Society: A Comparison Of Three Groups Of Israeli Junior-High Students—Secular Jews, Religious Jews, And Israeli Arabs." Education, Citizenship & Social Justice 9.1 (2014): 34. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 2014.
it seems as relevant information since it referred specifically to residents within the borders of the proposed states, is there any precedent for adding this? I realize it refers to jewish citizens of palestine as well, however the International zone was talked about in a separate charter as to the rights and definitions of the citizens of said zone, but in the end it looks like this is the basis of some of the claims to repatriate by palestinians and I assume at least some jews who fled jerusalem
Edit: I saw the original research notification for why it was removed, I have added the sources here (with last 3 as main sources, second to last page 188 as the origin of citizenship and whether or not refugees should have it), however have not edited it in or anything as I thought it would be better for people to just read this and decide for themselves on whether it should be added and if yes how and what to word it as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This was the definition accepted by the drafters of the resolution 194 for the purposes of defining the entire group of Palestinians who were entitled to the protection of the International Community
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |location=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Cite=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
The shorthand denomination "Palestinian" is discriminatory and ought to be changed into "Arab Palestinian". The shorthand name conveys the subtle message that "Palestinians" (of whom everybody knows they're definitely not Jewish) are the only legal heirs to the lands of Palestine. That pretense is patently false and in violation of the science of history which teaches that next to Arabs, Jews also have their roots in these grounds (some families never left), even if great numbers of Jews only arrived there at the end of the 19th century. To be sure, the Jewish inhabitants of the modern State of Israel are not going anywhere else. They and their forebears have complied with all the requirements of the 1920 San Remo Conference which granted them legal permission to settle the lands of Palestine. Both the Jewish presence and the State of Israel are definitely legit. Whereas the shorthand expression "Palestinians" questions the Jews' presence and Israel's legitimacy, in contrast, the full "Arab Palestinians" asserts the idea that Arabs and Jews can share these lands, or have adjacent states. I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion. Let us begin right here and change the name of this page into "Arab Palestinian refugee". -- Uruandimi ( talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This fails WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and probably a couple other policies I can't think of right now. "I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion." is POV-pushing, and is not welcome on wikipedia, much less in an area under arbitration for contentious editing. Please don't.-- Carwil ( talk) 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It is funny. Jews have the right of return to Israel for religious or ethnic (and sometimes cultural if they converted but where not descended of them) to Israel even though they may have never lived there and spent their entire lives in another nation. Meanwhile you tell people who actually grew up in these villages they are not allowed back and the decedents who had grandparents and parents who lived here can't go back, meanwhile Jews can say well my ancestor lived here 2000 years ago and can. Furthermore let's all just start tracing our roots to Africa and claim that land. Sigh. Do you see why there is more than one side? because the right of return allows some level of recognition that not only do the Jews have people who lived there but so do the Palestinians and both want to go back because their ancestors lived there, but only one can. To add to it people claim the Jews have a right but Palestinians don't since their ancestors moved in after the Jews left. Which makes no sense, because the concept of sovereignty and human rights is a modern era invention, back than the Romans kicked Jews out and others came and took what was left. Either you try to see both points of view and claims or you just pick one, railroad the other and continue division and POV in writing. While I speak of Palestinians it is not lost on me that Jews live there too now, but there is no reason why two groups of humans can't live there. After all, unlike animals we can talk, plan, cooperate, and think using a level of intelligence unrivaled, so how about we not get divided over trivial crap that makes us as stupid as cavemen while pretending we are civilized for falling into Human tribalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 ( talk) 06:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit was execrable because it restored what a sockpuppet had just put back in. But it is execrable because it revives an all-but-moribund meme, still in distribution only among polemical hacks, that was effectively destroyed by both Erskine Barton Childers and Walid Khalidi a half century ago, the former classically in back in 1961, in an article in The Spectator May 12, 1961. (Elizabeth Matthews (ed.) The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Parallel Discourses, Taylor & Francis 2011 p.41). Everyone editing these issues should have the basic knowledge to recognize obvious crap, vigorously rebutted by Michael Palumbo, Dan Kurzman and others, Benny Morris himself (who stated that no Arab authority issued "blanket instructions by radio or otherwise, to Palestine's Arabs to flee." See also his The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge UP 2005 pp.269-70). Everyone should look twice or three times before 'restoring' work done by an obsessive sockpuppet. Pull your socks up (i.e. revert that nonsense). Nishidani ( talk) 16:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"According to Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, the Reverend Karl Baehe, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, Alexander Galloway, then head of the UNRWA for Jordan, said ..."
I understand that this "according to" clause is there for proper attribution and NPOV, but it makes the sentence an unreadable mess. Can anyone think of a way to rephrase it so it will be clear that Alexander Galloway is the one who allegedly made the statement and the others only reported it ? One way to achieve it is to remove the "according to" portion, there is already a citation overkill for those interested to know who reported it. “ WarKosign ” 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Eethove and Zero0000: regarding this edit: the term "nakba" is not an English word, does not appear anywhere else in the article and is not neutral. More importantly, it is not even mentioned in the quoted source, so it's incorrect to say that the quote was made "dealing with the nakba". I suggest to replace it with "dealing with 1948 Palestinian exodus" which is the WP:COMMONNAME of the event. “ WarKosign ” 06:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand this is a controvertial issue. Still, I would like to understand if I'm wrong. Reading the article, I see it claims "Being the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited...", while at the same time it does not mention the impossibility for those refugees to come back to their original territory (as other refugees have). I don't want to enter on a discussion around the right to return, it is not my intent, and my apologies if it seems so. I just see that UN has provided the refugee status to those children of original refugees because of the special circumstance of the impossibility to come back (as eventually other refugees do, or at least can). I feel that not clarifying this issue makes it appear as an unjustified privilege (and therefore biased), while UN had its justification (which we can agree or not). There are plenty of sources for this and I could edit it, but being such controvertial article, I prefer to provide my suggestion here before editing directly. -- Samer.hc ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian refugee → Palestinian refugees – Page talks more about refugees. Suggest rename to Palestinian refugees and create section on definition term for Palestinian refugee, renamed. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Palestinian refugees. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The estimate of 711,000 implies accuracy when there is none. It is also based on a number given in 1950. Modern historical research has improved upon that number. Therefore, the number should reflect what current historians estimate the number to be. ImTheIP ( talk) 11:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Article says:
The source in the article is https://web.archive.org/web/20070404085820/http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=53213&d=21&m=10&y=2004 and it says:
A better source is required. Perhaps one that cites Arab League Resolution 1547 directly. ImTheIP ( talk) 00:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
“Pardes Hana Immigrant Camp, 1956”. > Correct to 1950 please. See German Wikipedia and picture details: made Dec. 1, 1950, so can’t be from 1956. – Fritz Jörn ( talk) 14:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)