This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Palestinian right of return article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
""The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, Imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and Threw them into Prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The ARAB States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did Not Recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is Regrettable". - by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, March 1976 (Mahmoud Abbas current PA leader of the WB)-- - ` "The Arab streets are Curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa." - London Times, May 5, 1948 "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as Renegades." - The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948" - "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." - Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949" - "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." - Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25" - The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine..... - Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31" - I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948"
]. ""I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948" - The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies. -Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949 (recently cited by Dereez)" - We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down. - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952
""The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- Jordan daily Ad Difaa, Sept 6, 1954"
-
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948"
"The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities Guaranteed their Safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949""
-
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."
- Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee,- UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14"
-
"the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound Regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"
- The Arab National Committee of Haifa/Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, Schechtman, 1963""
-
"""Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave...
We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave...
We have rendered them dispossessed...
We have accustomed them to begging...
We have participated in lowering their moral and social level...
Then We exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of Political purposes..."
- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war""
.
`
` `
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4300:A190:A42E:BED4:849E:84D3 ( talk) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion the section “Opponents of the right of return hold…..” dose not in fact contain the main opposition to the right of return, but rather a weak watered down version that does not give the highlights of the objection the right of return.
A balanced article would use a summary of the more significant objections therefore I suggest:
Israel claims: that following hostilities in 1948, the young Israel [1] could not survive with a fifth column; that the open denial of Israel’s right to exist by majority of Palestinian refugees, exclude them from the nonbinding UN resolution 194 “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors” ; that the ‘right of return’ is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel; that unlike hundreds of millions of refugees rehabilitated in the late 1940’s [2] the Palestinians were the only ones that were not rehabilitated; that UNRWA, has served to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem rather than solve it; that the Palestinian refugees should have been rehabilitated in the late 1940’s by the neighboring Arab countries, just as Israel has rehabilitated the influx of Jewish Arab refugees escaping persecution in Arab countries; that the Arab failure to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees is long term strategy to destroy Israel.
Instead of: Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand.[5] The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement.[6][7] Other disputed aspects include the issue of the territorial unit to which Palestinian self-determination would attach, the context (whether primarily humanitarian or political) within which the right is being advanced, and the universality of the principles advocated or established to other (current and former) refugee situations.[8]
Unfortunately my editing has been repeatedly undone by Sean.hoyland without any explanation. I am a new user and do not know how to get assistance to resolve this issue. I would appreciate advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raanang02 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
References
IP editor, the paragraphs you are repeatedly inserting into this article (as well as to
Right of return) are unsourced. They appear to be your own personal viewpoints, created through original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review
our policy against origianl research, especially
the part about using material published by reliable sources in a way that constitutes original research. Also, consider getting a user account, rather than utilizing multiple IP addresses, whcih could lead to having some of those blocked under our
sockpuppet policy.
Canadian Monkey (
talk)
22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Blocked NoCal100 sockpuppet
Meanwhile I will try a compromise edit version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.185.162.10 ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The statement in the lead "possibly while compensating the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries as well" implies that the property claims of the Mizrahs should be dealt with on a national level. This was only ever a minority view-point and has been abandoned.
A 2003 article in Haaretz puts the idea down to The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) and one man, Yaakov Meron, then head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Haaretz says "In the end, the ministry closed the tap on the modest flow of funds it had transferred to WOJAC. Then justice minister Yossi Beilin fired Yaakov Meron from the Arab legal affairs department. Today, no serious researcher in Israel or overseas embraces WOJAC's extreme claims."
Note that it is national claims that are abandoned, not individual claims, the article also says "Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis)." PR talk 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Certainly notable enough. I just beefed up American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and mentioned it's position supporting it, FYI. :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Years ago, I read an interesting article (I believe it was a transcript/translation of an interview on French TV, or somewhere else in Europe) of a senior Palestinian leader. IN response to the interviewer asking 'If Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel under the terms you seek, what next?' (paraphrasing obviously.... ) The response was that Palestinians would immediately take political control of Israel, rename it "Palestine," and establish a strict Islamic caliphate. When asked if this would be fair to the Christians and Jews in the newly named country, his response was an offhand suggestion that some groups are foreign introductions and don't have a right to exist there in the first place. QUESTION: I can't find that interview again, and suspect it may have been a fraud. Has anyone else run across it, or similar reliably sourced material? If it can be found and vetted, it would be a great source of insight for the article. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
why are there sections on both "opponents" and "criticisms"? these two are the same and should be merged and shortened to reflect due weight for these views. the international community supports the right of return, and only israel disputes it, therefore this article should reflect that without giving so much weight to a small minority view. untwirl( talk) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to make it clear that the list of examples provided for the first bullet in the objectors viewpoints section is not a comprehensive list. How about "Some specific examples used by objectors for the argument above include:"? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Could a section be created drawing parallels to other cases of wartime population displacements and treatment of the right of return of refugees in the aftermath? The question of the right of Serbian refugees to return to Croatia, return of their pre-war property and various lost privileges (lost pensions, lost public housing rights etc) has been a prominent issue in assessment of human rights in Croatia (and quite present in national media), including in the context of EU accession process. As I understand it, formally this obligation is accepted by the Croatian governments, but its implementation is often criticized for extreme slowness for various reasons (eg http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/croatia0906webwcover.pdf). The implementation of this is evaluated in context of Copenhagen criteria , so some measure of improvement is condition for joining the Union (eg http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/files/file/progres%20report/CROATIA%202009%20PROGRESS%20REPORT.pdf , pg 15). I should mention that the official position of Croatia has been also that Serbs were invited to stay but were ordered to leave by their own leaders (making no claim that this is actually true or not, that's not my point) - but apparently this was not considered contradictory with formally having an obligation for enabling their return. I'd be very interesting if there are relevant legal differences between this case and Palestinian return. Aryah ( talk) 05:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I like to check references. And the following sentence has three sources, and not one of them says what it says it says.
I think I can say with certainty, that none of the articles refer to the international law or basic human rights at all. The first says the right of return is "sacred," and the second is an opinion piece in which the author admits his opinion is "contrary to the leading opinions of the American-European politicians and media." He references Wikipedia as his source. There is a bibliography but no footnotes. The last article is an interview with an Hamas spokesman, arguing for the so-called Saudi peace plan, which was non-starter. Nothing at all to support the sentence as written. What's up with this? Snakeswithfeet ( talk) 04:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Logically it must, because otherwise where would people return to? My rough research indicates that approximately 17,000km2 of land was confiscated without compensation. Would be great if someone could find reliable sources & add as it would help explain the situation! 93.96.148.42 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
I doubt it, and will look for sources. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For All Editors & Nableezy: The below sources used in this article infringe on WP:RS (way more than JVL, Nableezy) -- especially those with notations in bold below; feel free to check the claims made below & discuss:
My position is that SOME of this list of sources DO meet WP:RS, actually...BUT they just don't meet WP:RS SO strongly as JVL meets WP:RS (despite Nableezy's baseless/factually-unfounded accusation that JVL doesn't). THE ABOVE IS ALSO NOT MEANT TO BE A COMPLETE LIST, BUT MAY BE USEFUL TO THOSE BESIDES NABLEEZY WHO WANT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. 72.48.252.105 ( talk)
Egypt never claimed that Gaza was part of its sovereign territory. Egypt maintained a military occupation of the Gaza Strip, and from 1949-1959, Gaza was ruled by the internationally unrecognized "All-Palestine" government (which did not exercise power over "All-Palestine" and was not a government (like the term "1967 borders", which describes armistice lines that were established in 1949 and which are de jure not borders)). The article claims that Gaza was "a part" of Egypt. On the contrary, the fact is that either Gaza was Egyptian-occupied Israeli territory or an unincorporated territory under the administrative control of the Egyptian army. Since both Egypt and Israel both currently renounce any claims to Gaza, Gaza is either an unincorporated territory with no state claimants (and therefore Hamas could issue a unilateral declaration of independence), or some kind of de facto State of Hamastan, which is engaged in an ongoing war with Israel, but I digress. Anyway the article is wrong and I don't have the power to fix it because it's locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 ( talk) 08:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This is with regards to the [ Viewpoints] section.
Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who hears not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. (An Nisa 4:46)
-Pickthall Translation [1]
مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلا قَلِيلا (46)
mizzo (
talk)
19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Goal: implanting a discourse in Israeli society about the return.
"promote Israeli Jewish society's acknowledgement of and accountability for the ongoing injustices of the Nakba and the reconceptualization of Return as the imperative redress of the Nakba and a chance for a better life for all the country's inhabitants, so that it renounces the colonial conception of its existence in the region and the colonial practices it entails.
Zochrot will act to challenge the Israeli Jewish public's preconceptions and promote awareness, political and cultural change within it to create the conditions for the Return of Palestinian Refugees and a shared life in this country. To do so, Zochrot will generate processes in which Israeli Jews will reflect on and review their identity, history, future and the resulting discourse through which they conceive of their lives in this country. Our focus on the Jewish target audience derives from its practical and moral responsibility for Palestinian refugeehood, as well as from its privileged power position under the present regime." [ [3]]
They started truth commission, healing centers and conferences about very concrete legal themes on the return. The Idea is somehow, building a new state together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.114.146.109 ( talk) 07:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the template call
{{Israel-Palestinian peace process}}
just below the "Background" heading with
{{Israel-Palestinian peace process |Primary}}
so that the relevant list in the template is shown.
Thank you, 213.246.85.251 ( talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Al-Awda is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The line added here can be found, verbatim, in a number of places, among them the Israeli MFA and the JCPA. I however am unable to locate a book called The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld. Can Averysoda ( talk · contribs) please clarify where exactly he got this material. A publisher, or a date published, or any of the other items generally included when sourcing a book would be appreciated. nableezy - 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please change his name in the article to "Stig Jägerskiöld"? ImTheIP ( talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
This whole section is mostly WP:OR. "Supporter's viewpoints" and "objector's viewpoints" pick out random viewpoints, based on no criteria and no standards. An academic article is counterposed with trash websites like "Myths and Facts", counterposed with randomly chosen text from UN resolutions or Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all based on no discernible standard, except that some are "supporting" and same are "opposing".
International law is complex. We should be citing the opinions of scholars on this matter, who look at the relevant points, as to which principles are applicable and which are not, rather than randomly picking out aspects that WP editors think are important. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@ LoveFerguson: Even though I think the whole section is very bad, this edit is not good. Randomly attributing some information to "opponents" does not make it worthy to be included on Wikipedia. What makes a random blog post on the Times of Israel website or a comment by the website "Myths and Facts" notable? I have reverted this for now. Please note that 4 people, including myself, have reverted this material. I see continuous edit warring to keep it in. Kindly get consensus first, before adding this material again, per WP:ONUS. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like pertinent information to have in the lead. No convincing reason to remove it that I'm finding. But feel free to argue otherwise. El_C 19:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@ El C:, your edit description says "undid revision..." giving the impression that it was just a revert, and one that was intended "mainly" (your words) to correct the errors Wikipedia was giving. But...the diff view shows that you merged the 2 "opponent" paragraphs into a single paragraph, thereby inadvertently admitting that there is indeed a problem. It took only 1 byte to expose all of this. Did you think it was clever to risk your reputation with 1 byte? Al-Andalusi ( talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
As a rule there should be no "discussions" in the lead. No pros and contras. The lasts edit introduced such material, which should be kept in sections, so I undid it.
Debresser (
talk)
05:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Just skimmed the discussion, but it seem very weird how the introduction section is structured. First summary, then proponents view, then opponents view and then the government of Israel's view. While the Israeli view certainly is important, it is unfair to have it in the lead if the government of Palestine's view isn't also included. But then it becomes to cluttered. I therefore propose to cut it out and place it under the "Objectors' viewpoints" in the article. ImTheIP ( talk) 12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Shameless plug for the related page Right of return which I've tried to improve. But it needs more work. ImTheIP ( talk) 21:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
"The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement." Both the sources for this sentence are dead/broken. I have no idea how to repair them. Googling for '"ambit claim" israel' turns up nothing relevant. ImTheIP ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Shrike: The editor Shrike added: "and since international laws governing the right of return that have come into force since then are not retroactive, they do not apply to Palestinian refugees" It is a controversial statement and there is no source attached to it. It therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore Shrike, I think you should self-revert your edit because by reverting my revert of your edit you ran afoul of the 1RR rule. ImTheIP ( talk) 08:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Palestinian right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420712985&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I excised this block from the article:
Because it was erroneously attributed to Alexander Safian. Someone has certainly made this argument, but who? Should it be attributed to Joseph E. Katz of the EretzYisroel blog or do we have a better attribution? Also should the objectors objections really be arranged by authorship? First Karsh, then Lapidoth, then Safian, then Kent... Not a great way to organize things.
ImTheIP (
talk)
21:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
References
is riddled with unreliable sources and personal opinions. Also, the weight given to that has bloated beyond any reasonable proportion. I intend to remove the less than reliable sources. nableezy - 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Huldra: Why was Ruth Lapidoth removed? JCPA is not really the source, Lapidoth is. She is definitely an academic expert source. She has articles published in MPEPIL, etc. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Im fine with Lapdioth after further review, though Id rather it not be the JCPA pieces that are cited, but whatever. However, the pieces restored by יניב הורון are emphatically not reliably sourced. Icewhiz, you have been removing primary sources in another section of this article, so I assume you agree that this primary source should go? The "Purdue" cite appears to be a frickin homework assignment by David Horowitz and or an opinion piece early on in FPM's history, does anybody seriously think that is a reliable source? In the earlier piece of this revert the only thing the nytimes piece supports is that Israel claims to have no responsibility for it. Not the rather outlandish claim that Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. 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. Yaniv, you have repeatedly reintroduced unsourced or poorly sourced garbage into articles and made false edit-summaries. This is one such instance. Id ask that you self-revert now. nableezy - 04:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, you have returned unsourced and poorly sourced crap to this article. You have ignored this talk page. I will be reverting your edit shortly. The next person to introduce bullshit into this article with lies that it is sourced will be reported. nableezy - 19:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I just checked the first "sources" which were added here:
Ok...I really cannot be bothered to check all...shouldnt we bring the sources here, for inspection first, before riddling the article with this rubbish? Huldra ( talk) 22:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It is difficult to avoid the thought "vandalism" when looking at Debresser's shameful revert. What other description is possible for
I stopped there. This is one of the most outrageous edits by any editor I've seen in years. The typical knee-jerk revert by יניב הורון is no better. Zero talk 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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. In the largest and best-known example of such a forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes and almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea. And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states.in Karsh. So, no, this is not "discredited lies". And as some editors here should know - this is a long standing argument in this field and is well supported by documentary evidence in some cases. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Some of the changes I made involve Joseph Schechtman. As always, a sound contrary argument will suffice for an undo or compromise. The important thing to know is that Schechtman was never a third-party source so it is problematic to cite him just as some random historian with an opinion, and much more problematic to cite him as a source of fact.
Schechtman was the former secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky who wrote on the refugees as an employee of both the Israeli government and various Jewish organisations. In late 1948, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok arranged a Jewish Agency grant for Schechtman to "study some of the recent European population movements, in preparation for a book that Schechtman said would deal with the various European population transfers of 1945-1946, as well as the application of the transfer idea to 'Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine.'"(Rafael Medoff, Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, p149). Publication of the book was financed by the Jewish Agency.(ibid) In 1949 he was "hired by Abba Silver and the AZEC ... to organize a propaganda campaign advocating the resettlement of Palestinian Arab refugees in the Arab countries. Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Eliahu Epstein, and his counterpart at the UN, Abba Eban, helped plan the campaign. Schechtman authored two detailed booklets ... which served as the American Zionist leadership's staple literature on the subjct for years to come." (ibid, p215). This work is where the famous quote farm (Monseigneur Hakim, etc) originates from. I have originals of these booklets. It "constituted the Israeli government's official position on the issue for many years afterward" (ibid, p178). The American Jewish Congress and the Israeli government also sponsored Schechtman's writing on European population transfers (ibid, p177). Regarding his use in the article:
Zero talk 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I plan on excising a number of quotes from the objector's section. Currently that section contains a number of individual views and extended quotes whereas the supporters section does not, excepting a single extended quote. I plan to rectify that issue. Given edits such as this I would expect those edits to be accepted by all. nableezy - 18:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Ive made a number of changes to the section. Several of the blockquotes were removed and replaced with summaries and smaller length quotes. As far as what I removed, here it is and why:
Yaffa Zilbershats agrees and further argues against those who say that on May 15, 1948 Arabs living in Israel (who would later flee as refugees) must be considered Israeli citizens. She notes that most international treaties do not obligate a state to give citizenship to its inhabitants, and that the state (Israel) can decide to whom citizenship shall be given. She notes that while Article 15 of the UDHR does say "Everyone has the right to a nationality", that right is "ambiguous" and "weakly drafted".)Citation) Yaffa Zilbershats (2007) p. 201-6
Not relevant here, this isnt about whether or not the Palestinians should be Israeli citizens or not.
No right of return or compensation is available for the estimated 13 million people who moved between the newly created states during the partition of India in 1947. [1] Similarly, the millions of Sudeten Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II were never compensated.
covered again below with the same cite
In the Middle East, none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence. It is argued a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them. cited to: "ISRAEL and the Palestine right of return". stanford.edu.
unreliable source, covered better below
That the descendants of refugees do not automatically inherit refugee status.
already listed above with this cite
Regarding an argument that Israel's admission to the UN was conditional upon acceptance of relevant UN Resolutions, including Resolution 194, Lapidoth has written that "a careful scrutiny of the text of Israel's application for membership and the discussions that took place in the Ad Hoc Political Committee and in the plenary session of the General Assembly show that no such commitment was made; nor did the General Assembly's Resolution on the admission of Israel impose upon her an obligation to implement that Resolution". cited to: Lapidoth, Ruth: "The Right of Return in International Law, with Special Reference to Palestinian Refugees", Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 16, 1986
Already have lapdioth above saying 194 is not binding. nableezy - 06:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
References
It's been established that this is a lie ( Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#"Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation).
Per WP:Fringe, articles may include fringe claims only if they are followed by a documentation of its current level of acceptance among the academic community. The article should then refer reader to more accepted ideas. This is certainly not the case here.
Shrike, just because Karsh is a scholar, it doesn't mean that his views are automatically worthy. Karsh is regarded as a joke of a scholar (just read reviews of his books by academic scholars). He wrote a book arguing that the impact of the great powers on shaping the Middle East has for years been overstated, and uses expressions like "Islamic imperialism". He exhibits amazing lack of self-awareness when he wants his readers to regard him as serious historian, while at the same time actively preaching against the the right of returns for the Palestinian refugees in his books.
Here is a sample of reviews of his books:
Empires of the Sand
Islamic Imperialism
Rethinking the Middle East
Palestine and the Palestinians
Palestine Betrayed
An effort will be made in the future to clean up the articles from this Karsh trash. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose that we agree to a equal word limit for each of the "Supporters' viewpoints" and "Objectors' viewpoints" section, for example 500 words. Then, with due attention to attribution of opinions and fair reporting of sources, we allow editors of those persuasions to choose what to insert in their section up to that limit. I'm hoping that having to select carefully will improve the average quality, as it is very low at the moment. Zero talk 13:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Why are you removing a frickin tag?
nableezy -
15:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Am I getting this right? Debresser, you are repeatedly restoring this webpage as a reliable source? Care to explain in what world a random person named Ronald Hilton is having an argument with another random person named Peter Green is a reliable source? nableezy - 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody explain why that matters? A concurrent resolution that has no actual impact on anything and a statement by a president with some spin by an ambassador? Id like to remove the section entirely. Objections? nableezy - 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
"Cutting UNRWA funding has been widely interpreted in both Israel and Palestine as a blunt move by the US to unilaterally sweep aside one of the main sticking points in peace negotiations – the right of return of Palestinians"[11]. As with other sections - we're dealing here with WikiArchaeology in terms of editing. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
"In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page."Zero talk 01:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like whoever supports the retention of that section to explain why resolutions, note not laws, making a general statement and having no force by one branch of one country's government should be included in full in an encyclopedia article. And then also why what an Israel ambassador said a US president meant in a statement that actually does not contain one word about refugees or a right of return anyway, should be included at length. I remind editors that this is an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of press releases or op-eds. Your stated reason for the revert Debresser is incomprehensible to me. Icewhiz agrees the material should be trimmed, and you have yet to offer any policy based reason for its retention. Please do so now. nableezy - 16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The Bush+Oren part is really pretty useless. So the Israeli ambassador thinks that Bush meant something stronger than what Bush actually said; this is notable? Zero talk 01:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The single non-primary source in that section is this article in Middle East Report. The single portion at all related to this topic in that article is this:
WOJI’s efforts also might run afoul of the coalition Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC). Since its inception in New York in 2002, it has mounted a vigorous campaign to categorize all Jewish emigrants from the Arab world after 1948 as “refugees” whose fate, and property losses, should be linked to any diplomatic discussion about the 1948 Palestinian refugees. JJAC is supportive of Israel’s long-standing assertion that any Israeli obligation to the Palestinians should be connected to property losses sustained by Jewish emigrants from Arab countries. JJAC has argued that there was an irreversible Jewish-Arab population and property exchange during and after 1948. Insofar as former Jewish citizens of Arab states are not seeking a “right of return,” JJAC asserts, neither should the Palestinians demand a right of return to Israel.
Can anybody explain why these resolutions, again not laws, should be included at all and what secondary sources actually connect them to the topic of this article? And for the record, that source never once mentions either the House or the Senate resolution or it being written by some lobby. nableezy - 21:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, as there is no secondary source connecting the US resolutions to this topic or to demonstrate that any weight is given to it in reliable sources I am again removing the Congressional resolutions. nableezy - 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So, can you show that there is any prominence given to these two resolutions? Any at all? Quoting from WP:ORNeutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
The congressional resolutions themselves say nothing, note not one thing, about a Palestinian right of return. All it says is that a peace deal should address the Jewish losses of property and whatever rights they are entitled to as refugees from the Arab countries they were expelled or fled from. You need reliable secondary sources making the connection you seek to make here. And finally, can you recognize what you are placing in the article? This is a. something that has zero consequence and b. what one of the architects calls "a tactic to help the Israeli government deflect Palestinian refugee claims in any final Israeli–Palestinian peace deal, claims that include Palestinian refugees' demand for the "right of return" to their pre-1948 homes in Israel." You really think we need that level of detail for a nonbinding Congressional resolution that isnt even actually addressing the topic of this article? All you have said is that you think it is POV to remove this. Please explain why you think it should be included. Why exactly should a concurrent resolution, not a law, that has zero effect on anything even in the United States, be included in this article? Do you have any reason at all?A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
Ficshbach is, I quoted what he said about any connection at the start of this section, I called it the single non-primary source. But that article is not about a Palestinian right of return, it has one single line that even comes close to connecting the topic. All it says is that one Jewish lobbying group pushed for this as a way of helping the Israeli government deflect Palestinian claims to a right of return in future negotiations. The article is about Jewish losses in Iraq, not a Palestinian right of return. nableezy - 16:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The quote from Bush is a primary source, and it says absolutely nothing about a Palestinian right of return. The only thing that is there is an op-ed by the Israeli ambassador suggesting that Bush meant what he did not say, which is a fine source for Michael Oren believing that, however he is not a reliable secondary source for what Bush actually meant. Without secondary sources showing that Oren's belief is given any weight it should be again removed. Debresser, do you have any such sources? nableezy - 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Benny Morris is an exceptional source who is a subject matter expert and even if this were self-published would be perfectly usable per WP:SPS. There is zero grounds for the removal of the quote or the source, and WP:RSOPINION allows for its attributed use here. nableezy - 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
‘The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century. And driving it was an iron logic: There could be no viable Jewish state in all or part of Palestine unless there was a mass displacement of Arab inhabitants, who opposed its emergence and would constitute an active or potential fifth column in its midst. This logic was understood, and enunciated, before and during 1948, by Zionist, Arab and British leaders and officials.’ Benny Morris, A new exodus for the Middle East? The Guardian 3 October 2002.
It has also been Israel's rationale for refusing to allow the refugees to return (see eg here, Israel has long argued that the return of Palestinian refugees would be a fifth column. nableezy - 17:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)According to Morris, Ben-Gurion explained the rationale in the following terms: If a war breaks out between the Jewish state and the Palestine Arab state, the Arab minority in the Jewish state would be a "Fifth Column"; hence, it was preferable that they be citizens of the Palestine Arab state so that, if the War breaks out and, if hostile, they "would be expelled" to the Arab state. And if they were citizens of the Jewish state "it would (only) be possible to imprison them.
Aquillion Im going to ask you to self-revert rather than just revert you, this text and source has been in this article for over six months now, and no Benny Morris is not low-quality source no matter where he is published. I will revert you if thats what you make me do, but I would ask that you respect the fact that this material already has consensus by dint of its being unchallenged until some person went on a url hunt without paying attention to what he was removing for 6 months. nableezy - 17:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the following change to the lead imagebox text:
− | + | [[Palestinian key|Such keys]] and the [[Handala]] are common Palestinian symbols of support for the right of return. |
Mdu02 ( talk) 00:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mrfixit4u ( talk) 12:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
References
The quote either needs to be closed, or the quotation mark should be removed. Under Abentees' Property: A group consisting of "local authorities, the kibbutz movements, the settlement departments of the National institutions, Haganah commanders and influential figures such as Yosef Weitz and Ezra Danin started lobbying against repatriation. 71.171.85.15 ( talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Two citations in this article link to the front page of the Jerusalem Post, without any other details.
Reference 10: "Israel News - Online Israeli News Covering Israel & The Jewish World …". 8 July 2012. Archived from the original on 8 July 2012.
Reference 89: "Satellite News and latest stories | The Jerusalem Post". fr.jpost.com.
Reference 10 may have once referred to a specific article, but the archive link just shows the front page of the Post on the given date, and none of the headlines appear to directly address the claim.
Reference 89 just links to the "Satellite" section of the front page, without even a date. I've searched for an article with the quote, but didn't find anything.
I'm marking both these references as failed verification, and am also posting here so that others can get more context and help with next steps toward resolving these citation issues. Quetzalquill ( talk) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Palestinian right of return article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
""The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, Imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and Threw them into Prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The ARAB States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did Not Recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is Regrettable". - by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, March 1976 (Mahmoud Abbas current PA leader of the WB)-- - ` "The Arab streets are Curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa." - London Times, May 5, 1948 "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as Renegades." - The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948" - "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." - Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949" - "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." - Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25" - The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine..... - Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31" - I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948"
]. ""I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948" - The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies. -Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949 (recently cited by Dereez)" - We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down. - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952
""The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- Jordan daily Ad Difaa, Sept 6, 1954"
-
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948"
"The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities Guaranteed their Safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949""
-
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."
- Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee,- UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14"
-
"the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound Regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"
- The Arab National Committee of Haifa/Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, Schechtman, 1963""
-
"""Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave...
We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave...
We have rendered them dispossessed...
We have accustomed them to begging...
We have participated in lowering their moral and social level...
Then We exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of Political purposes..."
- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war""
.
`
` `
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4300:A190:A42E:BED4:849E:84D3 ( talk) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion the section “Opponents of the right of return hold…..” dose not in fact contain the main opposition to the right of return, but rather a weak watered down version that does not give the highlights of the objection the right of return.
A balanced article would use a summary of the more significant objections therefore I suggest:
Israel claims: that following hostilities in 1948, the young Israel [1] could not survive with a fifth column; that the open denial of Israel’s right to exist by majority of Palestinian refugees, exclude them from the nonbinding UN resolution 194 “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors” ; that the ‘right of return’ is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel; that unlike hundreds of millions of refugees rehabilitated in the late 1940’s [2] the Palestinians were the only ones that were not rehabilitated; that UNRWA, has served to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem rather than solve it; that the Palestinian refugees should have been rehabilitated in the late 1940’s by the neighboring Arab countries, just as Israel has rehabilitated the influx of Jewish Arab refugees escaping persecution in Arab countries; that the Arab failure to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees is long term strategy to destroy Israel.
Instead of: Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand.[5] The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement.[6][7] Other disputed aspects include the issue of the territorial unit to which Palestinian self-determination would attach, the context (whether primarily humanitarian or political) within which the right is being advanced, and the universality of the principles advocated or established to other (current and former) refugee situations.[8]
Unfortunately my editing has been repeatedly undone by Sean.hoyland without any explanation. I am a new user and do not know how to get assistance to resolve this issue. I would appreciate advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raanang02 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
References
IP editor, the paragraphs you are repeatedly inserting into this article (as well as to
Right of return) are unsourced. They appear to be your own personal viewpoints, created through original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review
our policy against origianl research, especially
the part about using material published by reliable sources in a way that constitutes original research. Also, consider getting a user account, rather than utilizing multiple IP addresses, whcih could lead to having some of those blocked under our
sockpuppet policy.
Canadian Monkey (
talk)
22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Blocked NoCal100 sockpuppet
Meanwhile I will try a compromise edit version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.185.162.10 ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The statement in the lead "possibly while compensating the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries as well" implies that the property claims of the Mizrahs should be dealt with on a national level. This was only ever a minority view-point and has been abandoned.
A 2003 article in Haaretz puts the idea down to The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) and one man, Yaakov Meron, then head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Haaretz says "In the end, the ministry closed the tap on the modest flow of funds it had transferred to WOJAC. Then justice minister Yossi Beilin fired Yaakov Meron from the Arab legal affairs department. Today, no serious researcher in Israel or overseas embraces WOJAC's extreme claims."
Note that it is national claims that are abandoned, not individual claims, the article also says "Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis)." PR talk 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Certainly notable enough. I just beefed up American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and mentioned it's position supporting it, FYI. :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Years ago, I read an interesting article (I believe it was a transcript/translation of an interview on French TV, or somewhere else in Europe) of a senior Palestinian leader. IN response to the interviewer asking 'If Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel under the terms you seek, what next?' (paraphrasing obviously.... ) The response was that Palestinians would immediately take political control of Israel, rename it "Palestine," and establish a strict Islamic caliphate. When asked if this would be fair to the Christians and Jews in the newly named country, his response was an offhand suggestion that some groups are foreign introductions and don't have a right to exist there in the first place. QUESTION: I can't find that interview again, and suspect it may have been a fraud. Has anyone else run across it, or similar reliably sourced material? If it can be found and vetted, it would be a great source of insight for the article. 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
why are there sections on both "opponents" and "criticisms"? these two are the same and should be merged and shortened to reflect due weight for these views. the international community supports the right of return, and only israel disputes it, therefore this article should reflect that without giving so much weight to a small minority view. untwirl( talk) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to make it clear that the list of examples provided for the first bullet in the objectors viewpoints section is not a comprehensive list. How about "Some specific examples used by objectors for the argument above include:"? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Could a section be created drawing parallels to other cases of wartime population displacements and treatment of the right of return of refugees in the aftermath? The question of the right of Serbian refugees to return to Croatia, return of their pre-war property and various lost privileges (lost pensions, lost public housing rights etc) has been a prominent issue in assessment of human rights in Croatia (and quite present in national media), including in the context of EU accession process. As I understand it, formally this obligation is accepted by the Croatian governments, but its implementation is often criticized for extreme slowness for various reasons (eg http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/croatia0906webwcover.pdf). The implementation of this is evaluated in context of Copenhagen criteria , so some measure of improvement is condition for joining the Union (eg http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/files/file/progres%20report/CROATIA%202009%20PROGRESS%20REPORT.pdf , pg 15). I should mention that the official position of Croatia has been also that Serbs were invited to stay but were ordered to leave by their own leaders (making no claim that this is actually true or not, that's not my point) - but apparently this was not considered contradictory with formally having an obligation for enabling their return. I'd be very interesting if there are relevant legal differences between this case and Palestinian return. Aryah ( talk) 05:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I like to check references. And the following sentence has three sources, and not one of them says what it says it says.
I think I can say with certainty, that none of the articles refer to the international law or basic human rights at all. The first says the right of return is "sacred," and the second is an opinion piece in which the author admits his opinion is "contrary to the leading opinions of the American-European politicians and media." He references Wikipedia as his source. There is a bibliography but no footnotes. The last article is an interview with an Hamas spokesman, arguing for the so-called Saudi peace plan, which was non-starter. Nothing at all to support the sentence as written. What's up with this? Snakeswithfeet ( talk) 04:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Logically it must, because otherwise where would people return to? My rough research indicates that approximately 17,000km2 of land was confiscated without compensation. Would be great if someone could find reliable sources & add as it would help explain the situation! 93.96.148.42 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
I doubt it, and will look for sources. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For All Editors & Nableezy: The below sources used in this article infringe on WP:RS (way more than JVL, Nableezy) -- especially those with notations in bold below; feel free to check the claims made below & discuss:
My position is that SOME of this list of sources DO meet WP:RS, actually...BUT they just don't meet WP:RS SO strongly as JVL meets WP:RS (despite Nableezy's baseless/factually-unfounded accusation that JVL doesn't). THE ABOVE IS ALSO NOT MEANT TO BE A COMPLETE LIST, BUT MAY BE USEFUL TO THOSE BESIDES NABLEEZY WHO WANT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. 72.48.252.105 ( talk)
Egypt never claimed that Gaza was part of its sovereign territory. Egypt maintained a military occupation of the Gaza Strip, and from 1949-1959, Gaza was ruled by the internationally unrecognized "All-Palestine" government (which did not exercise power over "All-Palestine" and was not a government (like the term "1967 borders", which describes armistice lines that were established in 1949 and which are de jure not borders)). The article claims that Gaza was "a part" of Egypt. On the contrary, the fact is that either Gaza was Egyptian-occupied Israeli territory or an unincorporated territory under the administrative control of the Egyptian army. Since both Egypt and Israel both currently renounce any claims to Gaza, Gaza is either an unincorporated territory with no state claimants (and therefore Hamas could issue a unilateral declaration of independence), or some kind of de facto State of Hamastan, which is engaged in an ongoing war with Israel, but I digress. Anyway the article is wrong and I don't have the power to fix it because it's locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 ( talk) 08:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This is with regards to the [ Viewpoints] section.
Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who hears not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. (An Nisa 4:46)
-Pickthall Translation [1]
مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلا قَلِيلا (46)
mizzo (
talk)
19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Goal: implanting a discourse in Israeli society about the return.
"promote Israeli Jewish society's acknowledgement of and accountability for the ongoing injustices of the Nakba and the reconceptualization of Return as the imperative redress of the Nakba and a chance for a better life for all the country's inhabitants, so that it renounces the colonial conception of its existence in the region and the colonial practices it entails.
Zochrot will act to challenge the Israeli Jewish public's preconceptions and promote awareness, political and cultural change within it to create the conditions for the Return of Palestinian Refugees and a shared life in this country. To do so, Zochrot will generate processes in which Israeli Jews will reflect on and review their identity, history, future and the resulting discourse through which they conceive of their lives in this country. Our focus on the Jewish target audience derives from its practical and moral responsibility for Palestinian refugeehood, as well as from its privileged power position under the present regime." [ [3]]
They started truth commission, healing centers and conferences about very concrete legal themes on the return. The Idea is somehow, building a new state together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.114.146.109 ( talk) 07:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace the template call
{{Israel-Palestinian peace process}}
just below the "Background" heading with
{{Israel-Palestinian peace process |Primary}}
so that the relevant list in the template is shown.
Thank you, 213.246.85.251 ( talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Al-Awda is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The line added here can be found, verbatim, in a number of places, among them the Israeli MFA and the JCPA. I however am unable to locate a book called The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld. Can Averysoda ( talk · contribs) please clarify where exactly he got this material. A publisher, or a date published, or any of the other items generally included when sourcing a book would be appreciated. nableezy - 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please change his name in the article to "Stig Jägerskiöld"? ImTheIP ( talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
This whole section is mostly WP:OR. "Supporter's viewpoints" and "objector's viewpoints" pick out random viewpoints, based on no criteria and no standards. An academic article is counterposed with trash websites like "Myths and Facts", counterposed with randomly chosen text from UN resolutions or Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all based on no discernible standard, except that some are "supporting" and same are "opposing".
International law is complex. We should be citing the opinions of scholars on this matter, who look at the relevant points, as to which principles are applicable and which are not, rather than randomly picking out aspects that WP editors think are important. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@ LoveFerguson: Even though I think the whole section is very bad, this edit is not good. Randomly attributing some information to "opponents" does not make it worthy to be included on Wikipedia. What makes a random blog post on the Times of Israel website or a comment by the website "Myths and Facts" notable? I have reverted this for now. Please note that 4 people, including myself, have reverted this material. I see continuous edit warring to keep it in. Kindly get consensus first, before adding this material again, per WP:ONUS. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like pertinent information to have in the lead. No convincing reason to remove it that I'm finding. But feel free to argue otherwise. El_C 19:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@ El C:, your edit description says "undid revision..." giving the impression that it was just a revert, and one that was intended "mainly" (your words) to correct the errors Wikipedia was giving. But...the diff view shows that you merged the 2 "opponent" paragraphs into a single paragraph, thereby inadvertently admitting that there is indeed a problem. It took only 1 byte to expose all of this. Did you think it was clever to risk your reputation with 1 byte? Al-Andalusi ( talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
As a rule there should be no "discussions" in the lead. No pros and contras. The lasts edit introduced such material, which should be kept in sections, so I undid it.
Debresser (
talk)
05:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Just skimmed the discussion, but it seem very weird how the introduction section is structured. First summary, then proponents view, then opponents view and then the government of Israel's view. While the Israeli view certainly is important, it is unfair to have it in the lead if the government of Palestine's view isn't also included. But then it becomes to cluttered. I therefore propose to cut it out and place it under the "Objectors' viewpoints" in the article. ImTheIP ( talk) 12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Shameless plug for the related page Right of return which I've tried to improve. But it needs more work. ImTheIP ( talk) 21:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
"The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement." Both the sources for this sentence are dead/broken. I have no idea how to repair them. Googling for '"ambit claim" israel' turns up nothing relevant. ImTheIP ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Shrike: The editor Shrike added: "and since international laws governing the right of return that have come into force since then are not retroactive, they do not apply to Palestinian refugees" It is a controversial statement and there is no source attached to it. It therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore Shrike, I think you should self-revert your edit because by reverting my revert of your edit you ran afoul of the 1RR rule. ImTheIP ( talk) 08:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Palestinian right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420712985&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I excised this block from the article:
Because it was erroneously attributed to Alexander Safian. Someone has certainly made this argument, but who? Should it be attributed to Joseph E. Katz of the EretzYisroel blog or do we have a better attribution? Also should the objectors objections really be arranged by authorship? First Karsh, then Lapidoth, then Safian, then Kent... Not a great way to organize things.
ImTheIP (
talk)
21:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
References
is riddled with unreliable sources and personal opinions. Also, the weight given to that has bloated beyond any reasonable proportion. I intend to remove the less than reliable sources. nableezy - 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Huldra: Why was Ruth Lapidoth removed? JCPA is not really the source, Lapidoth is. She is definitely an academic expert source. She has articles published in MPEPIL, etc. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Im fine with Lapdioth after further review, though Id rather it not be the JCPA pieces that are cited, but whatever. However, the pieces restored by יניב הורון are emphatically not reliably sourced. Icewhiz, you have been removing primary sources in another section of this article, so I assume you agree that this primary source should go? The "Purdue" cite appears to be a frickin homework assignment by David Horowitz and or an opinion piece early on in FPM's history, does anybody seriously think that is a reliable source? In the earlier piece of this revert the only thing the nytimes piece supports is that Israel claims to have no responsibility for it. Not the rather outlandish claim that Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. 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. Yaniv, you have repeatedly reintroduced unsourced or poorly sourced garbage into articles and made false edit-summaries. This is one such instance. Id ask that you self-revert now. nableezy - 04:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, you have returned unsourced and poorly sourced crap to this article. You have ignored this talk page. I will be reverting your edit shortly. The next person to introduce bullshit into this article with lies that it is sourced will be reported. nableezy - 19:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I just checked the first "sources" which were added here:
Ok...I really cannot be bothered to check all...shouldnt we bring the sources here, for inspection first, before riddling the article with this rubbish? Huldra ( talk) 22:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It is difficult to avoid the thought "vandalism" when looking at Debresser's shameful revert. What other description is possible for
I stopped there. This is one of the most outrageous edits by any editor I've seen in years. The typical knee-jerk revert by יניב הורון is no better. Zero talk 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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. In the largest and best-known example of such a forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes and almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea. And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states.in Karsh. So, no, this is not "discredited lies". And as some editors here should know - this is a long standing argument in this field and is well supported by documentary evidence in some cases. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Some of the changes I made involve Joseph Schechtman. As always, a sound contrary argument will suffice for an undo or compromise. The important thing to know is that Schechtman was never a third-party source so it is problematic to cite him just as some random historian with an opinion, and much more problematic to cite him as a source of fact.
Schechtman was the former secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky who wrote on the refugees as an employee of both the Israeli government and various Jewish organisations. In late 1948, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok arranged a Jewish Agency grant for Schechtman to "study some of the recent European population movements, in preparation for a book that Schechtman said would deal with the various European population transfers of 1945-1946, as well as the application of the transfer idea to 'Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine.'"(Rafael Medoff, Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, p149). Publication of the book was financed by the Jewish Agency.(ibid) In 1949 he was "hired by Abba Silver and the AZEC ... to organize a propaganda campaign advocating the resettlement of Palestinian Arab refugees in the Arab countries. Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Eliahu Epstein, and his counterpart at the UN, Abba Eban, helped plan the campaign. Schechtman authored two detailed booklets ... which served as the American Zionist leadership's staple literature on the subjct for years to come." (ibid, p215). This work is where the famous quote farm (Monseigneur Hakim, etc) originates from. I have originals of these booklets. It "constituted the Israeli government's official position on the issue for many years afterward" (ibid, p178). The American Jewish Congress and the Israeli government also sponsored Schechtman's writing on European population transfers (ibid, p177). Regarding his use in the article:
Zero talk 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I plan on excising a number of quotes from the objector's section. Currently that section contains a number of individual views and extended quotes whereas the supporters section does not, excepting a single extended quote. I plan to rectify that issue. Given edits such as this I would expect those edits to be accepted by all. nableezy - 18:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Ive made a number of changes to the section. Several of the blockquotes were removed and replaced with summaries and smaller length quotes. As far as what I removed, here it is and why:
Yaffa Zilbershats agrees and further argues against those who say that on May 15, 1948 Arabs living in Israel (who would later flee as refugees) must be considered Israeli citizens. She notes that most international treaties do not obligate a state to give citizenship to its inhabitants, and that the state (Israel) can decide to whom citizenship shall be given. She notes that while Article 15 of the UDHR does say "Everyone has the right to a nationality", that right is "ambiguous" and "weakly drafted".)Citation) Yaffa Zilbershats (2007) p. 201-6
Not relevant here, this isnt about whether or not the Palestinians should be Israeli citizens or not.
No right of return or compensation is available for the estimated 13 million people who moved between the newly created states during the partition of India in 1947. [1] Similarly, the millions of Sudeten Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II were never compensated.
covered again below with the same cite
In the Middle East, none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence. It is argued a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them. cited to: "ISRAEL and the Palestine right of return". stanford.edu.
unreliable source, covered better below
That the descendants of refugees do not automatically inherit refugee status.
already listed above with this cite
Regarding an argument that Israel's admission to the UN was conditional upon acceptance of relevant UN Resolutions, including Resolution 194, Lapidoth has written that "a careful scrutiny of the text of Israel's application for membership and the discussions that took place in the Ad Hoc Political Committee and in the plenary session of the General Assembly show that no such commitment was made; nor did the General Assembly's Resolution on the admission of Israel impose upon her an obligation to implement that Resolution". cited to: Lapidoth, Ruth: "The Right of Return in International Law, with Special Reference to Palestinian Refugees", Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 16, 1986
Already have lapdioth above saying 194 is not binding. nableezy - 06:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
References
It's been established that this is a lie ( Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#"Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation).
Per WP:Fringe, articles may include fringe claims only if they are followed by a documentation of its current level of acceptance among the academic community. The article should then refer reader to more accepted ideas. This is certainly not the case here.
Shrike, just because Karsh is a scholar, it doesn't mean that his views are automatically worthy. Karsh is regarded as a joke of a scholar (just read reviews of his books by academic scholars). He wrote a book arguing that the impact of the great powers on shaping the Middle East has for years been overstated, and uses expressions like "Islamic imperialism". He exhibits amazing lack of self-awareness when he wants his readers to regard him as serious historian, while at the same time actively preaching against the the right of returns for the Palestinian refugees in his books.
Here is a sample of reviews of his books:
Empires of the Sand
Islamic Imperialism
Rethinking the Middle East
Palestine and the Palestinians
Palestine Betrayed
An effort will be made in the future to clean up the articles from this Karsh trash. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose that we agree to a equal word limit for each of the "Supporters' viewpoints" and "Objectors' viewpoints" section, for example 500 words. Then, with due attention to attribution of opinions and fair reporting of sources, we allow editors of those persuasions to choose what to insert in their section up to that limit. I'm hoping that having to select carefully will improve the average quality, as it is very low at the moment. Zero talk 13:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Why are you removing a frickin tag?
nableezy -
15:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Am I getting this right? Debresser, you are repeatedly restoring this webpage as a reliable source? Care to explain in what world a random person named Ronald Hilton is having an argument with another random person named Peter Green is a reliable source? nableezy - 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody explain why that matters? A concurrent resolution that has no actual impact on anything and a statement by a president with some spin by an ambassador? Id like to remove the section entirely. Objections? nableezy - 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
"Cutting UNRWA funding has been widely interpreted in both Israel and Palestine as a blunt move by the US to unilaterally sweep aside one of the main sticking points in peace negotiations – the right of return of Palestinians"[11]. As with other sections - we're dealing here with WikiArchaeology in terms of editing. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
"In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page."Zero talk 01:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like whoever supports the retention of that section to explain why resolutions, note not laws, making a general statement and having no force by one branch of one country's government should be included in full in an encyclopedia article. And then also why what an Israel ambassador said a US president meant in a statement that actually does not contain one word about refugees or a right of return anyway, should be included at length. I remind editors that this is an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of press releases or op-eds. Your stated reason for the revert Debresser is incomprehensible to me. Icewhiz agrees the material should be trimmed, and you have yet to offer any policy based reason for its retention. Please do so now. nableezy - 16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The Bush+Oren part is really pretty useless. So the Israeli ambassador thinks that Bush meant something stronger than what Bush actually said; this is notable? Zero talk 01:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The single non-primary source in that section is this article in Middle East Report. The single portion at all related to this topic in that article is this:
WOJI’s efforts also might run afoul of the coalition Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC). Since its inception in New York in 2002, it has mounted a vigorous campaign to categorize all Jewish emigrants from the Arab world after 1948 as “refugees” whose fate, and property losses, should be linked to any diplomatic discussion about the 1948 Palestinian refugees. JJAC is supportive of Israel’s long-standing assertion that any Israeli obligation to the Palestinians should be connected to property losses sustained by Jewish emigrants from Arab countries. JJAC has argued that there was an irreversible Jewish-Arab population and property exchange during and after 1948. Insofar as former Jewish citizens of Arab states are not seeking a “right of return,” JJAC asserts, neither should the Palestinians demand a right of return to Israel.
Can anybody explain why these resolutions, again not laws, should be included at all and what secondary sources actually connect them to the topic of this article? And for the record, that source never once mentions either the House or the Senate resolution or it being written by some lobby. nableezy - 21:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, as there is no secondary source connecting the US resolutions to this topic or to demonstrate that any weight is given to it in reliable sources I am again removing the Congressional resolutions. nableezy - 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So, can you show that there is any prominence given to these two resolutions? Any at all? Quoting from WP:ORNeutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
The congressional resolutions themselves say nothing, note not one thing, about a Palestinian right of return. All it says is that a peace deal should address the Jewish losses of property and whatever rights they are entitled to as refugees from the Arab countries they were expelled or fled from. You need reliable secondary sources making the connection you seek to make here. And finally, can you recognize what you are placing in the article? This is a. something that has zero consequence and b. what one of the architects calls "a tactic to help the Israeli government deflect Palestinian refugee claims in any final Israeli–Palestinian peace deal, claims that include Palestinian refugees' demand for the "right of return" to their pre-1948 homes in Israel." You really think we need that level of detail for a nonbinding Congressional resolution that isnt even actually addressing the topic of this article? All you have said is that you think it is POV to remove this. Please explain why you think it should be included. Why exactly should a concurrent resolution, not a law, that has zero effect on anything even in the United States, be included in this article? Do you have any reason at all?A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
Ficshbach is, I quoted what he said about any connection at the start of this section, I called it the single non-primary source. But that article is not about a Palestinian right of return, it has one single line that even comes close to connecting the topic. All it says is that one Jewish lobbying group pushed for this as a way of helping the Israeli government deflect Palestinian claims to a right of return in future negotiations. The article is about Jewish losses in Iraq, not a Palestinian right of return. nableezy - 16:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The quote from Bush is a primary source, and it says absolutely nothing about a Palestinian right of return. The only thing that is there is an op-ed by the Israeli ambassador suggesting that Bush meant what he did not say, which is a fine source for Michael Oren believing that, however he is not a reliable secondary source for what Bush actually meant. Without secondary sources showing that Oren's belief is given any weight it should be again removed. Debresser, do you have any such sources? nableezy - 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Benny Morris is an exceptional source who is a subject matter expert and even if this were self-published would be perfectly usable per WP:SPS. There is zero grounds for the removal of the quote or the source, and WP:RSOPINION allows for its attributed use here. nableezy - 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
‘The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century. And driving it was an iron logic: There could be no viable Jewish state in all or part of Palestine unless there was a mass displacement of Arab inhabitants, who opposed its emergence and would constitute an active or potential fifth column in its midst. This logic was understood, and enunciated, before and during 1948, by Zionist, Arab and British leaders and officials.’ Benny Morris, A new exodus for the Middle East? The Guardian 3 October 2002.
It has also been Israel's rationale for refusing to allow the refugees to return (see eg here, Israel has long argued that the return of Palestinian refugees would be a fifth column. nableezy - 17:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)According to Morris, Ben-Gurion explained the rationale in the following terms: If a war breaks out between the Jewish state and the Palestine Arab state, the Arab minority in the Jewish state would be a "Fifth Column"; hence, it was preferable that they be citizens of the Palestine Arab state so that, if the War breaks out and, if hostile, they "would be expelled" to the Arab state. And if they were citizens of the Jewish state "it would (only) be possible to imprison them.
Aquillion Im going to ask you to self-revert rather than just revert you, this text and source has been in this article for over six months now, and no Benny Morris is not low-quality source no matter where he is published. I will revert you if thats what you make me do, but I would ask that you respect the fact that this material already has consensus by dint of its being unchallenged until some person went on a url hunt without paying attention to what he was removing for 6 months. nableezy - 17:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the following change to the lead imagebox text:
− | + | [[Palestinian key|Such keys]] and the [[Handala]] are common Palestinian symbols of support for the right of return. |
Mdu02 ( talk) 00:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mrfixit4u ( talk) 12:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
References
The quote either needs to be closed, or the quotation mark should be removed. Under Abentees' Property: A group consisting of "local authorities, the kibbutz movements, the settlement departments of the National institutions, Haganah commanders and influential figures such as Yosef Weitz and Ezra Danin started lobbying against repatriation. 71.171.85.15 ( talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Two citations in this article link to the front page of the Jerusalem Post, without any other details.
Reference 10: "Israel News - Online Israeli News Covering Israel & The Jewish World …". 8 July 2012. Archived from the original on 8 July 2012.
Reference 89: "Satellite News and latest stories | The Jerusalem Post". fr.jpost.com.
Reference 10 may have once referred to a specific article, but the archive link just shows the front page of the Post on the given date, and none of the headlines appear to directly address the claim.
Reference 89 just links to the "Satellite" section of the front page, without even a date. I've searched for an article with the quote, but didn't find anything.
I'm marking both these references as failed verification, and am also posting here so that others can get more context and help with next steps toward resolving these citation issues. Quetzalquill ( talk) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)