Misplaced Pages

Talk:Palestinian refugees: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:45, 23 November 2006 editAmoruso (talk | contribs)13,357 editsm →Shmuel Katz's work is not well-sourced, nor is it relevant← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:29, 9 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,917 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Palestinian refugees/Archive 4) (bot 
(564 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ARBPIA}}
{| class="messagebox" style="background: {{{1|#D8E3FA}}};"
{{talkheader}}
|-
{{heated}}
| ]
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
| <div align="center">This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to ] when commenting here.
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}}
|}
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=top}}
Previous discussions on the this topic may be found here:
{{WikiProject Globalization |importance=top}}
]
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
== Numbers ==
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=top}}
The Palestinian refugee problem is noted as one of the more pressing refugee problems in the world, due to the tremendous duration of time and the number of people involved. It would be helpful if a table of numbers of current refugees, living in different countries, in the West Bank, Gaza etc, were made so the gravity of the topic can be easily understood.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Palestinian refugees/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Palestinians in Egypt ==
For instance, in the later part of the article, some numbers are given, such as the 500,000 Palestinians residing in Saudi Arabia. But then in the section under Lebanon, there are no numbers .


Hello, I've noticed this article does not discuss the palestinians that went to Egypt after 1948 even though there is a large number of them ] (]) 19:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If this information is elsewhere, then can a wikilink be placed somewhere?] 05:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


:Good question I was about to ask the same thing. Also not mentioned is that every arab country that accepted palestinian refugees after 1948 have had their governments attacked by the refugees. The ] was an armed conflict in Jordan in the early 70's that involved a violent government takeover attempt by the palestinian refugees. Similar events happened in every arab country that accepted palestinian refugees. ] (]) 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
:Here are two references I was able to find after a little research. I would like to know the origin of the 500,000 figure. The first reference gives the Palestinian population of Saudi Arabia, in 1981, as 136,779. The second reference cites the number 183,000 for the same population as of 1993. That's an increase of about a third in 12 years. So, assuming another increase of a third in the next 12 years, that would make the current population about 245,000. These are only rough estimates, but if the current population really is 500,000, that would be an increase of 273% (vs. 33% in the previous 12 year period). The 500,000 number may still be correct; but if it is, we need a reference.
:: So which similar event happened in Egypt? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


== Hello, NOT war refugees /Gaza strip: demogr / Refugees before WWII ==
: Smith, Pamela Ann, "The Palestinian Diaspora, 1948-1985," <em>Journal of Palestine Studies</em>, Vol. 15, No. 3. (Spring, 1986), pp. 90-108.
: Courbage, Youssef, "The Population of Palestine," Population: An English Selection, Vol. 7. (1995), pp. 210-224.
:] 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


- Refugees are systematically as war refugees here which is giving a wrong impression to readers.Should Arabe ountries had won that war then maybe Palestinians could have stayed but it is not even certain. Europe might have come to the rescue. So, the real reason is the estabishment of Israel.
===Refugees versus refugee descendants===
Are there any exact figures for how many people are left of the ones who fled six decades ago, and how many people are descended from those who fled?''//] 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)''


(To me it is a bit the same as claiming that the purge of all Jews (but now only: all European diaspora) was due to the fact that Arabs had lost this war, out of pride. In reality it was a reaction to a project (Israel) they had always been opposed to.)
== Pre-war refugees ==
As Ilan Pappe writes in A History of Modern Palestine, a third of Palestine's Arabs had been evicted before the Arab states invaded in May 1948.
Charles Glass, London Review of Books 24 Jun 04


== Right of Return ==


So it weems unfair to claim that Palestinians were refugees of a war that would never had happened without zionism.
Three of the primary reasons that people object to a Palestinian "Right of Return" have not been listed here. Specifically they are


2. There were 250'000 refugees in Gaza strip beginning of 1950 and a total population of 1'760^000 in 2015 based on my research. The number of refugees and their descents cannot possibly be 550'000. I couldn't fin a chart on UNWRA . It is really difficult to extract facts from there. I used a Website called Statistica (refresh browser each time).
1) The General Assembly resolution says "refugees wishing to return to their homes '''and live at peace with their neighbours'''" should be allowed back. Returning home is predicated on wishing to live at peace, and Israelis see no evidence that Palestinian refugees wish to live at peace with them.
2) In any event General Assembly resolutions are non-binding.
3) The actual refugees wishing to "return home" number only a small fraction of the total number of Palestinians now classed as refugees, at most 10%; the other over 90% cannot be said to be returning. ] 20:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


3. There were refugees before WWWII. Whole villages erased and people thrown out and put on road by very hot wether. I'll try to find a source.
1) is fine. 2) is not precisely an objection, but may be relevant. 3) strikes me as completely irrelevant, even if reliable statistics could be found on who wants to return and who does not; a right does not have to be exercised by all those who have it (not everybody exercises their right to free speech, or trial by jury, for instance.) - ] 00:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


4. Anything more precise about West Bank? When they arrived and how many? (I struggle to find figuress)
:Hey Mustafa, where have you been? Regarding three, my point was unclear. Let me put it this way: Only 10% of those Palestinians classed as refugees have actually ever lived in the places they claim to be refugees from; the rest were born elsewhere, so they can't be refugees in the true sense of the word, nor can they return to a place they've never been. ] 01:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. ] (]) 00:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2024 ==
:Hey Jayjg! Just sitting around in Wiki-detox... ;) As for three, that is highly POV - particularly since Israel's claim to the land was itself based originally on people "returning" to a place their extremely distant ancestors had fled from. Other refugees - eg the ]s and ]s - have returned to the areas from which they were expelled a generation later, and I am unaware of any claim that Crimean Tatars born in Kazakhstan should be prevented from returning to what they continue to regard as their native land. - ] 01:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Palestinian refugees|answered=yes}}
::I hope the rest was good. I've made some updates partly based on our exchange above. ] 15:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The claim about Benny Morris is incorrect and footnote 32 supporting this position is taken out of context.


The line currently reads, According to historian Benny Morris, the expulsion was planned and encouraged by the Zionist leadership.
::: There is a huge opposition to Tatars returning back to Crimea. Their homes are long as taken, and generations of people were born there. Crimean peninsula is one of the most beautiful vacation spots in the ex-USSR and is heavily populated, e.g. the Politburo dachas were in Crimea. Think real estate. ]&larr;]&larr;] 10:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


However it should read: According to historian Benny Morris, expulsion was encouraged by some Zionist leaders during parts of the 1948 war, although it was never established policy.
:::: Of course - same as in this case. But unlike Israel-Palestine, the principle has been accepted, and a substantial number have returned. - ] 23:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


The beginning of the footnote ] (]) 04:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
==Libyan offer==
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">]</span>: ] <span style="">$</span></span> 03:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


== Is "citizen" the right word in the first sentence? ==
About Libya's offer: Saddam Hussein also made an offer like that. I don't think there were many takers. I can't remember any details so I'm not putting anything into the article. --] 04:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Did the british mandate even have a concept of a citizen of mandate palestine? ] (]) 18:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting - I hadn't heard about that one.
: Yes, see ]. But the word is not properly used in the first sentence. Actually the UNRWA definition specifies persons habitually resident in Palestine for two years, rather than citizens. This made the biggest difference for Jews, who by and large were not Palestinian citizens. Jews were later excluded on Israel's request. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


== "Displaced Palestinian Jews" ??? ==
Can you source "Libyan Jews... point out the lack of human rights, religious freedoms, and democracy in Libya that make such an offer highy unattractive"? I came across no such claims being made by Libyan Jews, though commenting on the lack of democracy in Libya is like commenting about the lack of oxygen on the Moon. - ] 01:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


In the third paragraph, the author writes about "displaced Palestinian Jews". I don't think there is such a thing... What are they? Who are they? Are there any sources confirming their existence? ] (]) 09:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:At the end of the first link:
:I added a link to ]. ] (]) 10:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::"We were never at home there," said New Yorker Vivienne Roumani-Denn, an expert on Jewish refugees from Arab lands who was born in Benghazi, the second-largest city in Libya. "Until the Muslim world really makes a commitment to tolerance, to democracy, '''to let people live with religious freedom''', there's no way to return."
::My question is not about Palestinian Jews, but about "Displaced Palestinian Jews". There is a major difference ] (]) 10:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:As for commenting on the lack of democracy in Libya (or indeed anywhere else in the Arab world) being like commenting on the lack of oxygen on the moon, yes, it goes without saying, but if specious offers of "Jewish return" from Arab dictators like Gaddafi (and Saddam Hussein) need to be mentioned, then apparently many other obvious things need to be mentioned as well. ] 06:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::In that case you can read through ] and ]. Editors without the extended confirmed privilege like yourself are only entitled to submit edit requests. If you would like to submit an edit request, do that. ] (]) 12:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

::::How do I submit an edit request? ] (]) 12:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Personally I would leave it out altogether. It's relevance to this page is very indirect. --] 06:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::::See ]. You can use ], or you can just write the request here, but it's best to follow guidelines in ]. Following that guideline gives the edit request the best chance of being accepted by an extended confirmed editor i.e. the request should be Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible. ] (]) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::Thanks! ] (]) 13:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::IMHO, if we talk about ] here at all, this is much more relevant than Qaddafi's PR tricks: ]&larr;]&larr;] 09:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's so specious about the offer? Everything I know about Qaddafi indicates he means it, just as it indicates that they'd be stupid to accept it. Unlike any other Arab leader, he's quite simple: he almost always means what he says, though what he says is almost always breathtakingly stupid. - ] 22:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Saddam Hussein's similar offer was specious either. What he was hoping for was a handful of returning Jews who would appear shaking his hand on TV and generally give him a nice propaganda event with minimal cost. The offer would have been quickly modified if a substantial number of Jews wanted to return to Iraq and get their property back. --] 08:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I meant "specious" in the sense that the offers were not made with any real intent of welcoming Jews or improving the Israeli-Palestinian issue; rather they were both ploys by the leaders to create propaganda opportunities to use against Israel, and improve their standing in the Western and Arab worlds. ] 15:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== List ==

As far as I know, there are many Palestinian refugees (or descendants) with degrees forming part of the ]als in the Persian Gulf and even Europe.
Doctors, architects, journalists,...
Probably they are those outside refugee camps.
However, could you make a ]?

==Later refugees==
I assume that neither this nor ] deal with recent ]s.
I have read that the Catholic church is concerned that the land of Jesus could remain without Christians, since the decreasing ]s are better received than Muslims in Western countries and feel increasingly uneasy along Muslim Palestinians and Israelis.

Palestinian Christians have been suffering marked at the hands of their Arab brethern who have a saying "first the saturday people, then the sunday people"....when the saturday people are stiff-necked and resist, the sunday people made to suffer by their Arab brethern. ] 18:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Palestinian Christians have been resisting Israeli aggression alongside their Muslim brothers and sisters for decades. Israelis discriminate against and oppress all Palestinians, except for the Jewish Palestinians who are now considered Israelis. Zionists like Lance6Wins have been attempting for a long time to drive a wedge and divide Palestinian resistance by setting Christians against Muslims. --] 19:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Some of Lance's links appear to come from Palestinian Christians themselves; why are your links more convincing than his? ] 19:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Your contribution in this case seems more than a trifle perverse. Two of those three references from ] come from ] - they blame the ''"Christian Right"'' of the US and Israel, respectively, for their plight. They're not running from their Muslim neighbours but from occupation and terrorism by brutal soldiers, and ethnic cleansing threats such as these: ''"House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright: 'I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank… I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.''.
:::(The third reference is a vicious polemic against Muslims by the author of ''" Eye to Eye will give you the latest documentation ...... of the consequences suffered by U.S. Presidents, Israeli Prime Ministers, and world leaders when they participate in the dividing of the covenant land of Israel and interfering with God's plan for the nation of Israel".'')
:::] 16:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to ] - the only Palestinian Christian on Misplaced Pages - about this, if he hasn't given up yet. However, if the many Christians fleeing Palestine are added, so should be the many Muslims doing the same. It's not much fun living under occupation, and many people prefer to get out if they get a chance. - ] 00:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==New Material==
The issue was a key factor in the collapse of peace talks in 2000. President Bush last April publicly embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's position that refugees be allowed into any new Palestinian state but not into Israel.

"We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends," Abbas told a session of parliament held to mourn Arafat, who died of an undisclosed illness in France on Nov. 11.

Please add. ] 18:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please provide exact Bush quote. - ] 14:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:"It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, as part of any final status agreement, will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than Israel." The source seems pretty reliable too ;-) ]

Cool. Sadly, I don't believe Abbas, but I've added a mention of his position in case he does come out on top. The Bush quote probably belongs in one of the more general peace process pages; to put it here would require a whole new section on political participants' views, which would be constantly in need of updating. - ] 15:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Hmm. I'm having difficulty understanding the "policy" on when references to American actions and views are relevant to this conflict, and when they are not. On the one hand, on the Arab-Israeli conflict page we have Alberuni insisting that the 9/11 attacks were part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet, here, when the American President makes a specific statement about the descendants of the refugees emigratiing to Israel, it's not relevant. ] 16:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The 911 attacks are not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and if that's what Alberuni is saying, he's wrong. Other pages' edit wars have little to do with this page... I'm not dismissing the sentence as irrelevant - merely noting that to make a place for it here would take a significant amount of work (namely, summarizing the positions of at least the major political organizations participating in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) I'm not averse to that work being done - or, indeed, to doing that work at some point - but it has not yet been done. - ] 00:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== The refugees "were not able to return home". ==

The article says the refugees "were not able to return home". That is true for most, but certainly not all refugees. Israel offered to allow 100,000 to return (including 35,000 that were in the process of returning), but the Arab states refused to negotiate with Israel so as not to give it "legitimacy". Palestine Conciliation Commission, Fourth Progress Report, A/922, 22 September 1949: "Subject to these conditions, the Government of Israel would be prepared to accept the return to Israel in its present limits of 100,000 refugees, in addition to the total Arab population existing at the end of the hostilities (including those who have already returned since then), thus increasing the total number of that Population to a maximum of 250,000. This repatriation would form part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created for the purpose by the United Nations." "This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway ". . I think this information should be included. ] 16:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to find out more first about these 35,000. What basis were they selected on? Did they actually return or not (the wording seems ambiguous)? - ] 18:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They were selected on the basis of family re-unification, and the wording is slightly ambiguous, though other sources are more explicit:
<blockquote>
In 1949, Israel offered to admit 100,000 Arab refugees, with the understanding that their repatriation would be linked to meaningful peace negotiations. Although 35,000 Arabs eventually returned under a family reunification plan, further implementation of the offer was suspended in the 1950's, after it became clear that the Arab states steadfastly refused to consider Israel's peace overtures, preferring instead to maintain a state of war with and economic boycott against Israel. </blockquote>
Also, from the original link:
<blockquote>
Notably, from the early 1950s until 1967, Israel maintained a family reunification program under which it claims that around 40–50,000 refugees returned to Israel; several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. And since the beginning of the Oslo process, Israel has collaborated in the de facto “return” to the Palestinian authority of thousands of 1948 refugees: PLO political figures and security forces, and their families. If return is defined as applying to “mandatory Palestine,” this may enable both Palestinians and Israelis to take satisfaction in the exercise of a return to the eventual Palestinian state alone. But in general, Israel, in keeping with its narrative, has preferred to avoid taking political initiatives in the refugee issue.
<br>
The principal known Israeli initiative took place in the summer of 1949. Under pressure from the US, and in view of Arab refusal (at the Lausanne Conference) to discuss agreed borders until the refugee issue had been resolved, the Ben Gurion government agreed to absorb 100,000 refugees. This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway. Israel’s decision was made conditional upon Arab agreement, at Lausanne, to a comprehensive peace, including resettlement of the remaining refugees in Arab countries. Discussion within the Israeli government at the time also touched upon the possibility of absorbing a larger number of refugees, on condition that the Gaza Strip (with some of its refugee population) would be transferred from Egyptian to Israeli control, thereby improving Israel’s military security situation vis-à-vis Egypt. Ultimately the Arabs rejected the Israeli offer, after which Israel retracted it.
</blockquote> ] 19:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One other point to check: the article currently says "During the period mid-1948-53 between 30,000 and 90,000 refugees made their way from their countries of exile to resettle in their former villages or in other Israeli Arab villages (contrary to Israeli law.)" Was this figure meant to include these family reunifications (in which case the parenthetical remark is partly wrong) or not? - ] 23:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Never mind - the quote is in Talk archives: "(Morris, p39) During the period mid-1948-53 between 30,000 and 90,000 refugees made their way illegally from their countries of exile to resettle in their former villages or in other Israeli Arab villages." Thank you Zero, as so often. - ] 23:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I propose a slight modification to your text, as follows: <blockquote>These ]s, the great majority of whom had lived there for generations, were generally not able to return home. In ], according to ], they numbered 914,000. During the period mid-1948-53 between 30,000 and 90,000 refugees (according to ]) made their way from their countries of exile to resettle in their former villages or in other ] villages (contrary to Israeli law); some 35,000 were let in legally under a family reunification agreement. In ], Israel offered to let in up to 65,000 more as part of a proposed deal with the surrounding Arab countries, but they rejected it, and Israel withdrew the proposal in ].</blockquote>I think this is more accurate, and slightly better gramatically. Thoughts? ] 17:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine. - ] 17:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A few things are not quite right here. The '100,000 offer' that Israel made at the Lausanne conference was supposed to consist of (1) 25,000 "illegal immigrants", (2) 10,000 persons under the family reunification scheme, (3) 65,000 others. The 25,000 figure was the one being claimed by the Israeli government at that time. It might be correct but there is no way to check it. An Arab who left their village, went to the West Bank, then returned to their village was an illegal immigrant according to Israel, but such people were indistinguishable from those who stayed in their village all along. Unless, of course, their village no longer existed in which case they would have tried to hide with relatives in another place. Anyway, these people would have tried to hide their history and Israel had a good motive to exaggerate their numbers, so the numbers are very uncertain. The figure of 10,000 was a "projected" number that did not correspond to reality. By the middle of 1951 the total number of such people was still less than 2000 (Israeli govt figures quoted by Morris). (And meanwhile Israel was still expelling Arabs, but that's another story.) The "35,000" ascribed to family reunicification in the article is simply wrong - it is 25,000+10,000 misinterpretted. A good source on the 100,000 offer is the last chapter of Morris (Birth...Revisited). --] 12:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks for responding to my e-mail on this question. Very interesting and informative response, though I'm not sure exactly where this leaves us. ]

Next, it is true that the Arab states rejected the 100,000 offer but there is more to the story. The offer was not made in isolation but had other conditions. For example, it included Israel being allowed to keep all of the land it had occupied in the war. Behind the scenes, the US was trying to press Israel into taking back a much larger number of refugees. There was huge opposition within the Israeli government to taking back any refugees at all (including from Ben Gurion, who for once didn't get is own way). Part of the Israeli preparation for making the offer was to deliberately stir up public opposition to it in Israel; the idea was to impress on the world how difficult it was for Israel to make such an offer and how impossible it would be to offer more. Around this time (I forget the exact chronological order) some of the Arab states were making secret contacts with Israel that offered various deals. For example, in 1949 Syria offered to "immediately sign a peace treaty and not an armistice and immediately exchange ambassadors", and in addition to settle 250,000-500,000 refugees. In return they wanted the international border to run along the Jordan River (note there is only a short stretch relevant to Syria) and through the middle of the Sea of Galilee. According to Israeli documents, Ben Gurion refused to discuss it. This is not necessarily relevant to the current article, but I mention it to show that the Israel-conciliatory, Arab States-intransigent picture of history is largely mythological. --] 12:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Interesting and informative as well, though considering that the Sea of Galilee is Israel's main freshwater source, I'm not surprised at Israel's reluctance to accept the Syrian offer. ] 18:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== My thanks, what types of photos are needed?, we were re-registered as refugees with UNRWA==

Well I have just read this article through twice, and it seems fine, I am not finding it too biased. A pleasant change, so I wanted to thank those involved, Thank You!

I will seek out some photos as requested. Any ideas on what is needed?

BTW: We were just re-registered as refugees by UNRWA, even though we are Canadian Citizens now. So I guess there is no time limit in terms of length or residency. My children, however, can only be registered by me, when I go back, according to the documents my father obtained when he came back from Jordan last December. Ironically about the same time as when the last revision took place.

] 04:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

== "or been expelled" ==

Yes, some were expelled, but the linked article (]) only indicates expulsions after the war started, so as far as I can tell the insertion was inaccurate. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: No, actually - I checked that article first, and during the first stage of the flight, December 1947 - March 1948, "There was also cases of outright explusions such as in Qisarya where roughly 1000 Palestinian Arabs were evicted in February". - ] 20:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I missed that when I read through it. Still, it seems to give a false impression, that there were large numbers of expellees at that time. I'll add in the 1000 figure. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: I'm not sure that isn't misleading too; the wording in Palestinian Exodus suggests that the number would have been at least significantly larger than 1000. An estimate would be ideal, if someone more knowledgeable could provide one. - ] 22:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we're looking for knowledgeable, Zero's the guy. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: You read my unwritten words. - ] 22:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== What does this mean? ==

After the UN partition of Palestine, war was declared on both sides. Most supporters of Israel believe that the Arab countries are responsible for the fact that there were refugees on either side, including areas not part of the Jewish state in the partition plan. They believe that the Arab countries should have absorbed the Arab refugees.


What is this point supposed to mean?
If it means quid pro quo, then its hould be merged with the next one.
] 11:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

== Useful link? "cause of the refugee problem" ==


== Treatment by other Arab states... ==

I added the note that it has been rumoured that states like Saudi Arabia refuse to grant any Palestinian refugees Saudi citizenship in order to artificially prop up the refugee problem. In all other comparable refugee situations the refugees in question have either been resettled in their home land or settled amongst the host population. It's the most likely reason in my book.

I should like to know why this note was deleted from the article.– Mr Bozo, 21 July, 2006

: Please check edit history. If you are talking about my edit: , as I stated in my edit summary, "some have claimed" is not good enough: WP should not be used to promote rumors. A ] would help. Thanks. ←] <sup>]</sup> 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

:: No worries mate! You're on. Byt the way, are blogspots OK so long as it's prefaced by "''Mr X'' claimed/suggested that..."? Mr Bozo, 23 July, 2006

:: How about this one?
:::"Not so, the Palestinians: Back in '48, the United Nations took up the task, not of resettling them in other Arab nations, but of maintaining them in refugee camps. For six decades, their "friends" have sacrificed these Palestinians' future in order to keep the grievance alive as a political issue." –Mr Bozo, 23 July, 2006

== Intro re-write ==

Stevertigo, your re-write of the intro of this article was highly problematic, because of its POV inclusions and factual errors. For example, you write that ''The conflict itself began with the influx of Jewish refugees, seeking refuge from ] within ].''; this is both unsourced and factually incorrect, since the conflict began in at least the 1920s, if not earlier, decades before The Holocaust. Continuing, you state ''The ] had once been the ] of Jewish ancestors, the immediate needs for survival met with the ]-based ethnic cause, which melded to become ].'' Again, unsourced opinion, difficult to understand, and factually incorrect; there was no "melding", and the claim that the "ethnic cause" was "religion based" is dubious, considering that the main proponents were socialist atheists who rejected religion. You continue ''Zionism sought to provide a home for Jewish refugees by displacing the resident Arab population,''; again, POV and factually incorrect - the goal of Zionism was not to displace the resident Arab population. Continuing, you state ''and was ultimately successful in building Israel as a nation state with an instituted ] of non-Jews.'', linking to ] - it's hard to imagine a more POV claim than Israel created an institutionalize Apartheid state. It's best to write introductions that conform with policy (], ], ]) instead. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::Your criticism is noted, but for the most part the "conflict" before the British left wasnt Arab-Jewish, it was Arab-British, Jewish-British, Arab-Jewish. The Arab-"Israeli" conflict couldnt have happened until roughly the time that Israel was founded, and in that case its too close in time and relevance to the Shoah to ignore. Your nitpickiness doesnt seem to be helping here, but I suppose my point was to make a reference to Jewish immigration not just as ], but as a genuine and urgent refugee crisis for whom the/a solution, coincidentally enough, was settlement in a place with some religious cultural significance. Jewish refugees, Palestinian refugees. Same thing, different contexts. "Melding" is of course a reference to the union of urgent need with religious cause and motivation, which again is a common theme among oppressed peoples. Could use some other word though. Oppression typically leads to a societies' refuge in religion. You can call anything I write "unsourced" of course. On apartheid, well we can disagree, but we need to link to the policy which explains Israels exclusive treatment. Certainly we also need to mention the fact that the ] has been doing much the same thing, for sake of using the refugees as political pawns. It certainly would balance things out. In any case the current version is inappropriately minimalist, and refers to the Catastrophe as if it were a cause and not merely an event within the conflict. -]|] 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm astounded you would insert your highly flawed version again, even after the issues were explained to you. I'll just refer you to some articles to start with: ], ], ], ] - fit those into your "the conflict wasn't Arab-Jewish, and it began with an influx of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust" theory. I believe that you're trying to edit in conformance with policies; however, my impression is that your POV is so deeply entrenched that you honestly don't even understand that it is a POV. Regardless of the cause, any proposed changes are going to have to be well ] here, because so far your edits are mostly ] ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:Stevertigo, could you please supply references for your edits from now on, as you seem to be adding your own opinions, and they are arguably factually inaccurate, definitely POV, and sometimes hard to understand. For example, what is a "religious-based ethnic cause"? Please bear in mind that we're not here to insert our own views into articles, but to summarize what reliable sources have said. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:: Perhaps I should also ignore the fact that, in spite of your pleasant requests for WP:CITE, the very first sentence of the current version itself has a "cite" tag on it. The way you two use it, CITE would appear to be largely an epithet. Jayjg, there is no context established for this article, and thats what is required in a ]. Read the policy. Its well written. This topic belongs in the context of the ], but I could easily focus that to the ], in which case your stipulations for including pre-Israeli conflicts would be justified. Is this what you were attempting to communicate?

:: Virgin, "religious-based ethnic cause" may be wordy, but no doubt a reference to Zionism would have been called "POV" as well. Immigration was motivated by both necessity and ideology, which varied according to time period, but theres nothing controversial about that basic fact. The resulting conflict is one best defined (within Israel anyway) as one of competing nationalisms, albeit the regional politics plays a huge part. I dislike this method you two have for making personal attacks and ganging up on an article, as if you were wikistalking or else coordinating some kind of opposition to any edits people make. It may be understandable, but its at the very least improper to begin an engagement by reverting. Id hate to think how much you two bite the newbies. -]|] 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::: All right, Ill admit my earlier version was pretty awful. Such happens when one tries to keep objectivity, and edits on the quick, only to have to deal with a revert. Ive made changes. Comment is more than welcome. -]|] 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't see anyone making personal attacks on you, but you're making them on us, so please stop. Rather than continuing to insert contentious material, could you please discuss on talk ''first''? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::As you complained about the need for a citation for figures in the intro, I've taken the figures from elsewhere in the text and referenced them, and inserted a quote from the UN giving their definition of "Palestinian refugee." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::I did not "complain," and your usage of that term is an obvious epithet. I merely noted a small discrepancy between what you say and what you do. -]|] 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC) PS: I perhap should have used the ] article instead: say/said do/did. Everybody makes mistakes. -SV
::::It astonishes me that you would admit your first attempt at a re-write was "pretty awful", but then still attempt to make huge changes without discussion here first. Let's work on this together, Stevertigo. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: And it never ceases to amaze me how you can consistently pass off your clinically ambiguous minimalism as neutral or "more factual," and reflexively debase any attempt at explanation or overview as POV. WP is not served by such emphasis on clinical technocrat definitionism, and the nominally surgical decimation of history and current reality it represents. I agree: lets work on this together. (Below). -]|] 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

=== Side by side ===
{| valign="top"
! SV's version
! SV's version
|-
| In the ], a '''Palestinian refugee''' is a ] from ] created by the ], which ]s call the ''Nakba'' ({{lang-ar|النكبة}}, meaning "disaster" or "catastrophe"). <br><br>

The ] definition of a "Palestinian refugee" is a person whose "normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict," <ref>, UNRWA, retrieved August 1, 2006.</ref> and their descendants, regardless of whether they reside in areas designated as "refugee camps" or in established, permanent communities. <ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp485.htm LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE QUESTION
Ruth Lapidoth 1 September 2002]</ref> The number of Palestinian refugees has grown from 711,000 in 1950 <ref name=UNnumbers1950>, Covering the Period from ] ] to ] ]</ref> to over four million registered with the UN in 2002.<br><br>

|'''Palestinian refugee''' is a non-]ish ] or ]-speaking ] from the ], who, due to the ], is living in military-] without officially recognized state ].
The conflict is one driven by the competing ] movements of Jewish and ] peoples, which has left the ] of ] in control of a ]-less and largely ungoverned population of Palestinian Arab ] posessing no official ].
<br><br>
The ] region had been the religious-ancestral ] of the Jews, and the modern ideology of ] promoted the establishment of a Jewish ] in Palestine.
During ], Zionism offered an answer to the growing refugee crisis for Jews seeking refuge from ].
Under the ], Palestinian Arabs and Jews had certain equality in terms of citizenship. This changed over time as ethnic tensions surged, the British relinquished their occupation, and the Jewish state of Israel was established. After the ] Arab Palestinans were ] in an event referred to as the ''Nakba'' ({{lang-ar|النكبة}}, meaning "disaster" or "catastrophe".) ЪBoth Israel and most of the ] states maintained policies of denying citizenship to the Palestinian refugees or their decendants &mdash;Israel due to its desire to maintain ethnic dominance within its small state, and the Arab League as a form of protest against the establishment of Israel.
<!-- Seems a bit incorrect
About 200,000 of these refugees survive today.-->
<br><br>
The ] definition of a "Palestinian refugee" includes all their descendants, now numbering over 4 million people (see ]), regardless of whether they reside in state-less areas designated as "]" or in established, permanent communities<ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp485.htm LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE QUESTION
Ruth Lapidoth 1 September 2002]</ref>.
|}
==== Comment ====
*Thanks for providing both the SV and the SV version like this -- helps to see what's happening. To start with, though: ''Both Israel and most of the ] states maintained policies of denying citizenship to the Palestinian refugees or their decendants &mdash;Israel due to its desire to maintain ethnic dominance within its small state...'' We'll need some sort of cite for this assertion, whether or not it is valid. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:Stevertigo, you have to start using sources and stop making it up e.g. "Palestinian refugee is a non-Jewish Arab ... who ... is living in military-occupied territories ..." So you can't be a Palestinian refugee if you're living in London, Damascus, or Amman? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::It bewilders me that you have the UN definition ''right next to your version'', yet you define it differently. You are saying you know better than the United Nations what a Palestinian refugee is. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That one caught my eye as well, jpgordon. Again, an astonishing display of one-sided POV so deeply entrenched that it doesn't even recognize it is a POV. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:Methinks thou dost protest much too protestingly. -]|] 06:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Side by side 2 ====
{| valign="top"
! Stevertigo's POV
! alternative POV
|-
| Both Israel and most of the ] states maintained policies of denying citizenship to the Palestinian refugees or their decendants &mdash;Israel due to its desire to maintain ethnic dominance within its small state, and the Arab League as a form of protest against the establishment of Israel.<br>

|Both Israel and most of the ] states maintained policies of denying citizenship to the Palestinian refugees or their descendants &mdash;Israel due to its concerns about hosting a large population of citizens hostile to its existence, and the Arab League so they could use the refugees as a pawn in their efforts to destroy Israel.
|}

Stevertigo, while I have my opinions about which statement is more accurate, at least ''I'' recognize that both statements are POVs. However, I'm getting the strong impression that you don't; rather, you see the left-hand side as "objective truth", and the right-hand side never even occurs to you as an alternative explanation for events. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
: Jaygjg, I dont think either version is particularly POV as they are both have the basic ''truths'' in them: Israel desires ethnic dominance (ie. "Jewish state"), and likewise has a justified fear of hostile reprisals. The Arab League states deny Palestinians citizenship both as a way to protest against the hostile establishment of a foreign state, and as a petty and despicable way to use human beings for a political purpose. With all of that true, I dont see what your point is. I suggest all of that characterization can fit. -]|] 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::They're both POVs, but the point is, you consistently choose to put one particular POV into this article, and an unsourced POV at that. That's bad editing on a number of grounds. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Thats your POV regarding my editing. In matter of fact, my single-handed efforts to write an encyclopedia have not been as successful as collaborating with others. I dont have all the pieces, after all. '''You''' were missing piece. -]|] 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Here are the pieces you are missing: ], ], ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Dont bicker with me. People might not be able to tell the difference. -]|] 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-----
{| valign="top"
! Stevertigo's definition
! United Nations definition
|-
|Palestinian refugee is a non-Jewish Arab or Arabic language-speaking refugee from the Palestine region, who due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is '''living in military-occupied territories''' ..." (no source, my emphasis).<br>

|A "Palestinian refugee" is a person whose "normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict," <ref>, UNRWA, retrieved August 1, 2006.</ref> and their descendants, regardless of whether they reside in areas designated as "refugee camps" or in permanent communities. '''Around 1.7 million live in Jordan; 400,000 in Lebanon; 400,000 in Syria'''; 600,000 in the West Bank; and 900,000 in Gaza. (my emphasis) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
|}
------

==== SBS 3====
{| valign="top"
! Stevertigo's definition
! United Nations definition
|-
| In common usage, a "Palestinian refugee" is a non-Jewish Arab or Arabic language-speaking refugee from the Palestine region, who, as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is living without ] in designated military-occupied reservations, as well as within neighboring states.<br><br>
The technical definition varies but the one accepted by the United Nations is a person whose "normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict," <ref>, UNRWA, retrieved August 1, 2006.</ref> and their descendants, regardless of whether they reside in areas designated as "refugee camps" or in permanent communities. ''Around 1.7 million live in Jordan; 400,000 in Lebanon; 400,000 in Syria''; 600,000 in the West Bank; and 900,000 in Gaza. Jordan allows citizenship to about half of its 3 million Palestinian residents, and general reference to "refugee" tends to omit this usage. (my emphasis)

|A "Palestinian refugee" is a person whose "normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict," <ref>, UNRWA, retrieved August 1, 2006.</ref> and their descendants, regardless of whether they reside in areas designated as "refugee camps" or in permanent communities. '''Around 1.7 million live in Jordan; 400,000 in Lebanon; 400,000 in Syria'''; 600,000 in the West Bank; and 900,000 in Gaza.
|}

:OK. Why do we need any definition in the header other than the UNRWA's? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Because technical definitions are never the colloquial definitions and so we never rely on them exclusively. They generally dont explain important factors which are found in the colloquial association with the name, which at least have to be clarified. This technical definition fails to such important factors as nationality, religion, language, etc. It may help to understand that any definition drawn up by the UN faces a US veto, though Im not certain if that had bearing in this particular case. The point is that there is a political environment within which this concept has been batted about and debated. Hence a reliance on a technical definition is only supportable by technocrats, and this deference to minimalism and clinicism isnt the MO on WP. WP requires that we use reason to craft a description of the topic which is sharp, clear, and to the point. IOW, its best just to say what (in this case who) the term is referring to, and then back that up with the various technical definitions, beginning with the most prominent. -]|] 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC) PS: all of this reminds me of the old ] debate from a few years ago - an early version had pissed me off due to its emphasis on the technical "causes" while altogether avoiding any language which would actually humanise the subject. Same thing, different context. -SV
:::Given that your personal opinion on who is a Palestinian refugee has already been shown to be wrong, I'm surprised you would continue to insist that we need some other definition besides the official one. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: Just noting a couple errors in your statement Jay: For one, there is no "given." Two, my personal opinion "]." Three, there is no issue of "wrong," with regard to a political definition: there are only ''explanations,'' of the various points of view. Four, nothing I do fails to "surprise" you, and I wont comment on what that must mean. Five, I am not "insisting," on anything, merely editing an article and debating with partisanos about its content. Six, we dont "need" anything here on Misplaced Pages; information is not essential to survival, and in fact often only fuels phenomena of excessive fearfulness and reactionism. Seven, there is no "one" "official" definition for an ethnic group; particularly one which is displaced, multicultural, and at the center of partisan political bickering over the question of its existence. -]|] 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::OK, so what's the source of your definition as opposed to the UNRWA one? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Stevertigo, your personal opinion ''is'' the big issue here, since you insist on putting it into articles, rather than simply quoting ]. And, by the way, the article isn't defining an "ethnic group", it's defining a type of refugee. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Refugees, who form the basis of an ] - distinct from Arabs - who were entirely displaced by a deliberate politically motivated colonization orchestrated by the British (as a result of British anti-Semitism, ironically). Calling people refugees and not Palestinians is another example of this clinical language which disguises itself as neutral - the UN version uses the term "a resident," which is equally clinical. Thats not my ''opinion'', but this distinctionism is nevertheless a fact of clinical language. -]|] 12:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::The U.N. defines what a Palestinian refugee is, and the British did their best to ''stop'' Jews from returning to their ancient homeland. Given your extreme views in relation to this topic, there's little more to say on this matter except ], ], ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: The U.N. provides ''one'' official defintion, and perhaps the most technically neutral one. They do not however " what a Palestinian refugee is" - only people themselves can determine their ethnicity. As far as what the British were up to, either you dont know what youre talking about, or are else being disingenously selective about the context. My "views" arent "views" nor are they "extreme:" Britain provided the foundation and supported initial migrations, even though it opposed later migrations which exceeded its mandate (from the ] article):

{|
|As early as 1840, Lord Palmerston (later to become Prime Minister) wrote:
:"There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine. It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth that they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan's dominions, and the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Egypt or its neighbours. I wish to instruct your Excellency strongly to recommend to the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine."

The document defining Britain's obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland:
:"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
|}
:::::::: -]|] 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Stevertigo, "refugee" is not an ethnicity, and ''you'' certainly cannot define what a Palestinian refugee is. Your extreme views are indeed that, and they often contradict the plain facts. As for the British, they were big on making noble statements, but in practice discouraged Jewish immigration ''which in no way "exceeded its mandate"'' - see, for example, the ]. The fact that you would justify the British actions on these grounds is just another example of your extreme views. Please stick to ], ], and ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Again your tenacity for academic dishonesty rears its ugly head. Most "Palestinians" are by definition "refugees", just as all Palestinian Jews are by definition "]is" since 1948. The White Papers were simply corrections in the policy which began under British control and support, and were defined within to have ''"with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" '''had been met'''..."'' That means that numbers over are exceeding thereof. Note again that my version does take into account both the legitimacy of the plight of Holocaust refugees, and the persecution of Jews by Arabs, and vice-versa. What could be more neutral than that? This article should perhaps be merged with ] and use a subsection to define the refugee concept. -]|] 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Jews born in Israel are not "refugees", nor are the descendants of Holocaust refugees who now are citizens of the United States, France, Germany, Australia, and various other countries around the world, nor are the descendants of Palestinians who are now citizens of Jordan, France, the United States, and various other countries around the world. Please respect ], ], ], and ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Dont change the subject. Most people regarded as Palestinians ''are refugees,'' including those who reside in other countries without citizenship. This includes most Palestinians within Israeli control, and about half of Jordan's Palestinian population. Dont abuse my own WP tags to quote policy to me when youre not even addressing the point. The point is that this article needs to be merged into ]. -]|]

::::::You said before that they had to be living in "military-occupied territories" before they counted as refugees. Please stick to using good sources, rather than expressing personal opinion. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::: If you could cite the actual source for that (claimed) quote I'd appreciate it. -]|] 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::You wrote it, and you didn't supply a source. It was your opinion and it was factually inaccurate, which is why I'm asking that you stick to reporting what reliable sources have published.-] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Thats my point: '''I didnt "write it"''' in the context and meaning you characterise, or else I would have ''remembered writing it. Could you please show me where that was written as you claim I wrote? -]|] 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Of course you wrote it, and inserted it into the lead of the article; . The context and meaning couldn't be clearer. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::You continually change the point, the subject, and your own definition of what a Palestinian refugee is - now it's apparently about merging articles, rather than the dozen other issues you insisted were "the point" before. "Palestinian" and "Palestinian refugee" are not the same thing, any more than "Afghan" and "Afghan refugee" are. Please do not assert ] over ], ], ], and ] - instead, just abide by them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Its hard to tell what youre doing Jay. It looks like youre just copying your old responses and changing a few words around. Id prefer to talk more with the intelligent human being in you rather than with the reflexive machine in you. Note also that your'e quoting policy which I had no small part in formulating. The proper heirarchical order, by the way, is NPOV first, then CIVIL, then V, then NOR, then OWN (the positives tend to precede the negatives). You got it all backwards as usual. ;) -]|] 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::PS: Your comparison to Afghans would be correct if it was in proportion. Because most Palestinians are refugees, the distinction is conceptual rather than material. Thus there is a substantial reason to integrate these. -]|] 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Stevertigo, please stop making ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Im not making personal attacks: I'm criticising ''yours.'' See the difference? -]|] 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Stevertigo, I'm not going to be drawn further into this. The bottom line is that you must comply with policy. That includes, but is not limited to, ], which you continue to violate. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Again your accusations citing WP:CIVIL (which I personally codified, no less) avoid directly answering my statements, and conform to a non-responsive and therefore ''incivil'' mode. As is your repetition that I am not complying with "policy" in general. I will proceed with editing this article according to standard norms. If you have anything new or interesting to say, I will of course listen. -]|] 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It's amazing you could ] of ], yet not understand how, for example, saying someone has a "tenacity for academic dishonest" is uncivil. As for proceeding, I will proceed with editing this article according to '''policy''', and will remove any ] ] ] on sight. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
=== Confused ===
I'm now kinda confused, perhaps, by all this interpersonal bickering, none of which seems to address the actual questions raised by the various edits. In particular, I haven't received an answer to my question to Steve of last week: ''hat's the source of your definition as opposed to the UNRWA one?'' Perhaps you guys should take your disagreement over the precise meaning and hierarchy of our guidelines to some more suitable forum so the rest of us could actually work out whether or not the changes to the definition are appropriate. (And, Steve, it doesn't matter at all who first formulated the policy; you can be proud of having done so, but it doesn't give you more authority regarding its current interpretation.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed, whats "confusing" is that the "bickering" amounts to essentially a ''personal attack'' on me, for attempting &mdash;albeit not with the instant perfection that Slim and Jayjg no doubt make '''all''' their edits &mdash;to take a clinical UN definition and translate that into something which people can actually ''read,'' within some basic lede requirements such as ''place names, ethnic concepts, historical context, and current situation.''
:No, to them that's just "unsourced" "personal opinon." Instead, what Slim and Jayjg appear to be saying is that on the basis of that they instantly reverted before I could make corrections, that all future edits to this article be me will likewise be prejudiced as invalid. That indeed '''is''' "confusing," as it leads the reader to wonder what their ''real'' argument is. It's obviously not any ''specific'' problem with any one particular edit, as they have chosen to revert '''all''' of my edits to this article wholesale, on the claimed basis of a couple spelling errors or flaws in a particular statement. And then they call me "incivil." And then people wonder why I appear "aggressive." To say the least I'm ''truly'' dissappointed.-]|] 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
**Stevevertigo, sentences like ''Again your tenacity for academic dishonesty rears its ugly head'' are purely incivil. Is that hard to see? Besides which, you never did answer my question, not now and not then. From what I understand of ] and ], it's actually an important question; we don't get to synthesize ideas here, even if we're correct. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stevertigo, the many problems with your edits were explained at length ]; it's rather disappointing that you pretend that didn't happen. If your edits aren't quite ready for the encyclopedia, why not work on them here instead, suggesting various changes to the intro in concert with other editors? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I remember there were a couple points in need of correction. Upon correcting these I was reverted. Certainly you remember that happened, dont you?-]|] 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::There were many things that needed correction, and you didn't really fix any of them. Certainly you remember that happened, don't you? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Should we take this to Arbcom? The issue now is the integration of this article into ], given the substantial proportions. I dont know of any other ethnic group with half its population designated as refugees. -]|] 05:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Stevertigo, since when did ArbCom deal with content disputes, and when did it become the first resort in dispute resolution? I'm not even sure what you think the dispute is any more. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Hence the title of this thread. What is this dispute about Jayjg? -]|] 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::You appear to have a dispute with three editors, and more basically with the fundamental content policies. What do you think the dispute is about? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Stevertigo, please supply sources for your edits. If you do that, and stick closely to what the sources say, there will be no problems. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

== definition of a "Palestinian refugee" ==

I recently initiated the renaming of a section into '] definition of a "Palestinian refugee" '. Then I noticed the phrase " evolved independently of the ] definition". This leads to two questions:
*What is the "] definition"?
*Which one should be in the intro? (now the quote in intro is from UNRWA).

Will it make sense to make a separate section for the discussion of the definition(s)?
`'] ] 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: UNRWA was formed before UNHCR and formulated its own definitions before there were any UNHCR definitions. When UNHCR was formed later, its charter explicitly excluded some groups of people such as people being cared for already by UNRWA. That's why the UNRWA definitions continued to be used. The intro should focus on UNRWA since that is the definition that actually applies. Comparison with UNHCR can go later as it is a secondary issue. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Important to note that UNWRA accepted as "palestinian" anyone who has been in Palestine only <b> two years </b>. Many so-called "palestinians" (not all but some) actually are egyptians, Syrians etc... who arrived into Israel in the 1930s and 40s as a result of labor demand that came after Zionist immigration caused economic boom. ] 05:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::You know my opinion on that. By the way, the "two year" restriction is ''more'' strict than the UNWRA definition that has no time limit at all (provided the place they left was their established place of living). --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::It is not an issue of a POV, it is the UNWRA definition:
:::::#"anyone that have been in Palestine two years before 1948 is considered a 'Palestinian refugee'" (even if they have just moved from Egypt or Syria or Jordan).
:::::#The "refugee status" pass to all children and their children to eternity. ] 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::One can make lots of criticisms of societies that are so divided and inward-looking that they cannot accomodate and settle people who are made homeless elsewhere. However, it's a bit much if you simultaneously believe the same people and societies actually flowed easily into Palestine (and seriously self-deceiving if you think the Zionists created the conditions for them to do so). ] 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::::You're in danger of recycling a nasty piece of Zionist propaganda. With a few honourable exceptions, the immigrants refused to do any business with locals, and only employed them while waiting for fresh arrivals to take the jobs. (Lots of references for that if you're interested). It seems likely there was some immigration, but the British can be the only ones to claim credit for it. The claims of Peters and Katz are simply denial, an attempt to cover for an atrocity.
::::] 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "UNRWA definition of a 'Palestinian refugee'" is pretty neutral and NPOV. It displays the facts, the supporters, and the critics. What more can you ask for? --] 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

==the cites calling for destruction of Israel==
*resolution of the Refugee Conference held at Homs, Syria, in 1957
*Gamal Abdel Nasser , interview in Zibicher Woche, September 1, 1961.
] 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate! --] 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== The claim for "Right of return" ==

It is purely witten from an Israeli point of view. "The claim" says it all.] 08:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

== People that fled in 1967 ==
according to the article:
"The UNRWA also registers as refugees... persons in need of support who first became refugees as a result of the 1967 conflict"

According to a study by Oxfam "Coping Mechanisms: Palestinians in camps in Lebanon
Preliminary Field Study Report" refugees that fled the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the 1967 war are not registered with the UNRWA and therefore do not qualify for assistance, even though they live in refugee camps and share the same legal status as those that fled the war in 1948.

Also according to the UNRWA definition of Palestinian refugees:

"Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict... UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948..."

There is no mention of status of those that fled the 1967 war as being registered by the UNRWA.
:You will notice that the number of refugees from 1948 is "accurately" known.
:But the number from 1967 is not. That's because there was no effort made by the International Community to succour (or indeed count) those who'd been de-housed this time round.
:] 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

== Persecution? ==

In the first sentence "a Palestinian refugee is a ]" and on the ] page I find the definition: "A refugee is a person seeking asylum in a foreign country in order to escape persecution, war, terrorism, extreme poverty, famines, or natural disaster." Is it persecution these refugees are escaping? What is the nature of the persecution? What happens to those who return or attempt to return? It seems a bit unreal to have this lengthy article without mentioning what they are escaping. And BTW, wouldn't it be helpful to the uninformed reader (our target audience) to say at the beginning that this is about Jews cleansing Palestine of non-Jews in order to set up a Jewish dominated regime? As it is you have to wade through most of the article to find this out. ] 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think it's helpful to label the gunmen as "The Jews". The Zionists want you to do so, in order that they can silence you with their nasty smears. But there's no good reason to fall into their trap.
:The refugees definitely fled persecution (or, in some cases, fear of persecution).
:You are quite right that this article needs a lot of work doing. The implication that they'd only been there 2 years, as made in the opening paragraph, is just another piece of denial to justify the theft of their homes, lands and businesses.
:] 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::Of the options, it would be war (regardless of what you two want to propagandize). --] 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

==Shmuel Katz's work is not well-sourced, nor is it relevant==
Material like this is not particularily relevant to an article on ] (in fact, it might look like nasty denial as doesn't belong anywhere on these pages).

Nor is it well sourced - Shmuel Katz is a propagandist first, his credibility as a historian is negligible. He has no qualifications and his work shows no evidence of any historical research. The clip from him that's appeared in this article amply demonstrates why his words don't belong in here, it's a polemic, entirely fact-free:

"The result has been the creation of a large, amorphous mass of names, some of them relating to real people, some of them purely fictitious or relating to persons, long since dead, a minority relating to people without a home as a result of their or their parents' leaving Palestine in 1948, the majority relating to people who, whatever their origins, are now living and working as ordinary citizens but continuing to draw rations and obtaining medical attention at the expense of the world's taxpayers -- all of them comfortably lumped together in official United Nations lists as Arab refugees and vehemently described as "victims of Jewish aggression."
:you're welcome to your POV of Katz. The material is obviously very relevant to the topic at hand, and removing it just because you think it is "nasty denial" is simply a POV edit. If you have sources showing that Katz's "credibility as a historian is negligible" - go ahead and provide them. Otherwise, keep your personal POV and OR out of the article. ] 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::Katz is a propagandist and he is not neutral. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::You're welcome to that POV. There is no requirements that sources be "neutral" - if there was - most of this article would have to be removed. Morris is not neutral. Porath is not neutral. Lapidoth is not neutral. You don't like Katz or his views - that's fine. But you have no business going around removing his comments just becuase you don't like them. ] 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Perhaps; but regardless, you need to gain consensus to include this, rather than edit warring. In fact, you just earned a 24 hour 3RR block. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::To ]; I notice you have not addressed my comment here. Please do so instead of continuing to blank well sourced, relevant text. ] 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::But ] doenst belong to an ] --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::But you have not shown that Katz's work is propaganda. This is merely your claim. The quote is taken from a scholarly book of history, ], authored by Katz, which received favorable reviews from historians. On what grounds are you disqualifying it as propaganda? ] 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::nice Nielswik, "propaganda doenst belong to an encyclopedia" and that is why you had added a link to the Israel-Gaza conflict from a neo-Nazi? LOL. So a Nazi source is okay but not Katz? --] 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: Please get real. Katz is not a scholar (no relevant qualifications), his book is obviously propagandistic, and it did ''not'' receive favourable reviews from historians. It was ignored. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::: This allegation of yours was refuted in the past. Katz is well sourced relevant and informative source used by all historians. See google scholar. ] 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Telling an editor to "get real" is a violation of . Please refrain from addressing me that way. I find it highly unusual to hear you say "Katz is not a scholar (no relevant qualifications), his book is obviously propagandistic", when in the past you had said this about him: "There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian". Perhaps there is another user impersonating you, I don't know how else to reconcile these contradictory positions. ] 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Katz's book on Jabotinsky is of some interest because Katz was a close associate of Jabotinsky and can write as an approving eye-witness. So if you want to quote him on Jabotinsky's beliefs, go ahead. Quote him on the Irgun's opinion if you want too; he was the Irgun's chief propagandist so few people know about that better than he does. However, quoting the Irgun's opinion out of his mouth in the pretense that it is the opinion of an independent scholar is an unacceptable distortion. Stop it. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::No scholar is "netural" in the sense that he starts writing without knowing what his conclusion would be. Obviously, anti zionist or post zionist books were written after formulating the conclusion. Katz has opinions, but his research is flawless - he doesn't say anything not based on outside sources. Nobody ever said his use of sources is fraudulent in any way. That's why he's a very good source since his research on the conflict is extensive and informative. Blanking him out since you don't like his biography is not acceptable. ] 11:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*Time to stop edit-warring, people. I have no idea whether its a good quote or not, and don't care; work this out here on the talk page or I'll just protect the page until an obvious consensus has developed. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know why any person would willingly wade into the middle of this, but at any rate... :)

:Leaving aside the question of Katz's credentials, I've not seen any discussion of the question of proportion. This section in its current form runs to about 960 words, of which 528 (or 55%) are taken up by a single quotation from a controversial source which, I'm sure most will agree, lies at one end of the spectrum of points of view on this topic. If we include the paragraph which introduces the quote, over 60% of the section (590 words) is given over to describing this single point of view. In order to comply with ] an article must "clearly, accurately, and fairly describe all the major points of view" on a given topic; it must "represent... fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

:Now, the earlier part of the section is a mostly uncontentious review of the the origins of the term ''Palestinian refugee'' and a brief history of the changes in its application. Toward the end it raises to issue of the possible inflations of the numbers, but, that aside, we can probably agree that the portion of the section up to the paragraph that introduces the Katz quotation is not dedicated to describing any point of view.

:What does this mean? It means that over 60% of the section -- not just the ''part'' of the section that describes the variety of points of view on this contentious topic, but of the ''entire'' section -- is taken up with describing a ''single'' point of view, and ''no other'' points of view are described. I cannot see any way in which that can be said to meet the requirement of "clearly, accurately, and fairly describ all the major points of view" or "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

:Next comes the question of what the topic of this section actually ''is''. The heading reads "UNRWA definition of a 'Palestinian refugee'". This is a section dedicated to summarizing the origins and evolution of the UNRWA definition .To me it appears that the Katz quote is on a different subject: not the UNRWA ''definition'' of a Palestinian refugee, but whether the number of people on the rolls is grossly inflated by fraud, ''irrespective'' of how UNRWA defines ''Palestinian refugee''. That being the case, the Katz quote, if it belongs anywhere, belongs elsewhere, because currently it occupies more than half the space in a section devoted to a different topic.

:To sum up: a quotation this long, included to illustrate a single point of view in a section which describes no other points of view on a topic on which several points of view exist, wouldn't belong in this section even if were on topic, which it isn't.

:So, what to do? Well, to begin with, one of the following has to happen: a) the quotation has to be removed from the article altogether; b) the section has to be retitled; or, c) the quotation has to be moved to a new section on the controversies surrounding the numbers and entitlement to refugee status.

:If the quotation is to be kept, in order to meet ], it will have to be complemented with ], ], so as not to violate the principle of ].

:Since the article is currently protected from editing, this might be a suitable interlude in which to try to come to some workable consensus on: a) what the competing points of view are; b) what the prominence of each is; and c)how each can be "]].

:Another matter to consider is how much space editors think this topic deserves in proportion to the rest of the article: there are far too many articles in Misplaced Pages in which a subsection on a controversial subject balloons so as to overwhelm the rest of the article of which it is but one part. The motives are often good -- to include all significant points of view -- but the result is often that the article as a whole becomes unbalanced and the subtopic acquires undue prominence.

:My candid opinion is that few article subsections could bear the sheer weight of a 500-word quotation illustrating a single point of view -- especially when you consider that such an addition necessitates the further addition of proportional counterweights.

:--] 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'd support option C- move the quote to a new section labeled "Controversy over actual number of refugees" or something similar. Katz's view that the UNRWA numbers are inflated is not uncommon, and in fact admitted to by none other than UNRWA themsleves. See ] 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:::If, as you say, evidence of inflated numbers can be cited from less controversial sources, what additional reason makes the Katz quote indispensable? --] 02:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I have no objection to providing other sources that say this. I object to removal of well sourced material based on false pretexts. ] 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Naturally, so do I. As for your offer to provide other sources, that might go a long way to removing the roadblock over this issue. Obviously, the view that the numbers are inflated qualifies as a "major point of view" by any measure, and so ''must'' be included. The question is how best to include it. Speaking personally, I'm disinclined to remove something simply because it's controversial. On the other hand, if other, uncontroversial sources offer the same information, it's less likely to be discounted because the reader assumes the source is biased. There's also a question of vintage: the Katz book is over thirty years old: a great deal has changed since 1973, both in the situation on the ground and in the understanding of past events. --] 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Katz's words are particularly well articulated after a very good respected historical research. I also support providing even ''more'' sources showing the quite undeniable fact that the numbers are inflated. Katz's original book is from that time but his recent edition of the book is from the 1990's so it's not outdated. ] 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I'm confused by this. You advocate the inclusion of ''even more'' material that would make essentially the same point, in a section that is already dominated by that point of view, both in terms of the ''weight'' of material dedicated to it, and in the fact that ''no other'' point of view on this topic is included, even though ] explicitly requires it: an article must "clearly, accurately, and fairly describe all the major points of view" on a given topic; it must "represent... fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Further, it must include differing points of view "in proportion to the prominence of each" in the scholarly literature, in order not violate the policy on ]. How would adding ''even more'' material from the only point of view the section now includes help bring the section into compliance with ]? What is your proposal for meeting the ''requirement'' of including alternative points of view?

::::::::As for the vintage of Katz, the editions from 1986 from Shapolsky and from 2002 from Taylor Productions, if these are what you're referring to, are simply reprints from different publishers, not new editions. As far as I know, the book has not been updated since the revised edition of 1978, which included a foreword by ]. In scholarship, 1978 is a lifetime ago. Works this old are chiefly treated by scholars as objects of historical interest -- to see what people thought about a topic ''back then'' -- and are rarely cited as "live" scholarship.

::::::::As well, irrespective of whether Katz' work merits inclusion as ], there is the question of why one might choose ''this particular'' passage, which is a summary with no cited sources. For example, the passage reads in part that, of the names inscribed in the refugee rolls, "a minority relat to people without a home as a result of their or their parents' leaving Palestine in 1948, the majority relat to people who, whatever their origins, are now living and working as ordinary citizens" elsewhere. This assertion about numbers is a ''claim of fact,'' but the basis for the claim is not included in the rest of this long quotation, but presumably elsewhere, where ] are cited. If the quotation is being included for its informational rather than rhetorical value, why not quote the part where the relevant information is contained rather than one that summarizes findings but cites no primary sources? Likewise the portion which reads, "A strict examination of the reports of UNRWA itself will show that the facts of the fraud are essentially not concealed." Why is the portion of the work that demonstrates with reference to primary sources included in preference to a summarizing passage whose tone is highly polemical? In point of fact, this a requirement of the policy on ].

::::::::As it is, quoting a long summarizing passage from a work whose engagement with primary sources lies elsewhere offer readers no opportunity to verify the claims therein contained. Instead, we have a Misplaced Pages editor quoting Katz summarizing his review of primary sources. This cannot meet ], as no attempt to cite a verifiable source for the claims has been included. And as ] makes clear, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question." It is ''not'', in other words, up to other editors to justify their ''deletion'' of a ] claim for which no citation has been provided. The onus falls solely on the editor advocating ''inclusion'', and that editor is just as responsible for ] claims in the secondary sources he cites as he is when he fails to cite primary sources. Otherwise editors could simply smuggle in specious claims by asserting that they're merely quoting a secondary source. --] 16:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::As for the new version, I have a Hebrew version from the 1990's it adds a lot more info and it's updated. I'm not sure if it also was translated to English, probably not, but he upgraded the whole book and in fact has two more forewards after the one of Begin and new chapters (essentially there are 3 versions and 2 updates). As for what you're worried if I understand correctly, Katz has references in his book for everything he says from distinguished historians actually many of Arab origin and others. What he said about UNRWA is backed by numerous sources of course. It's always possible to quote the original soruces but notice that if we do we'll make the criticism much more broader... in fact, I only scratched the surface with this quote. Your allegations of undue weight don't hold water here because if it bothers you we can make a new article aboutt UNRWA controversies and link there - as it is, others can add information about UNRWA but their refugee scam is well documnted and the criticism is much broader and holds many statisitical facts about this. Rather than censoring the information, we should look on how to improve it, something which is very difficult since there are people with interest who like to keep the myth of UNRWA untouched and revert any facts presented. They therefore choose the lame excuse of trying to attack the source even though like explained here by Isarig and others the facts aren't disputed by so many primary sources that are in fact the basis for what Katz simply retold. Trying to attack Katz is just worthless since it's the material he collected that's the issue, not him. ] 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's disproprtionate. Actually, the criticism is much broader and this is a short summary of one of the main points concerning UNRWA. It's perfectly fine as it is. ] 10:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'm equally confused by ''this''. By what measure can a 528-word quotation in a 960-word section be considered "short"? Also, as I've tried to point out previously, the topic of the section is ''not'' the UNRWA; it's the UNRWA ''definition'' of a Palestinian refugee -- a subject on which the Katz quote is silent. Up until the sentence that begins "Writers and historians...," the section remains focused on the question of ''definition''. The first two sentences of the paragraph that begins "Critics of the UNRWA say..." (a claim that needs sourcing, but the point is sound enough) remains on topic by opening up criticism of the UNRWA ''definition,'' and then suddenly the paragraph abandons the topic in favour of ''general'' criticism the UNRWA. It's an abrupt and jarring shift as open to criticism on stylistic grounds as much as anything else. --] 16:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see Katz being referenced as if he was a regular historian - yet no evidence for it is ever presented. He appears to claim that all the Palestinian refugees left because their own told them to. That's patently untrue, and looks a lot like nasty denial that has no place in here. Furthermore, it's backing for a meaningless propaganda claim, that because some Palestinians left because they were "told to" (5 or 10% by other accounts), therefore they're not entitled to return.
The other major contribution I've seen from him is that the Palestinians were "all" (?) recent immigrants, a claim that is both highly unlikely and irrelevant and unpleasant.
And it gets worse - when I see portions of his work, it's almost completely fact-free (like the paragraph I quoted above).
I've never participated in any form of edit war, and I don't intend to start. But I'm greatly saddened to see tat being published as if it was history.
] 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:we ''get'' your pov on this, we really do. ] 09:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
::You've provided nothing to indicate that Shmuel Katz's publications are fit to be considered ]. I've provided some significant clips which make it seem he's very far from ].
::And in the meantime, I see you reverting much, much more soundly referenced material. Perhaps you'd like to consider your position on providing NPOV contributions.
::] 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

*OK, stepping back from the personal a bit...I've finally gotten around to actually looking at the material under dispute here; previously, I was deliberately ignoring the content and just dealing with the ongoing edit war. I think we can start by putting the dispute over the number of refugees into a separate section; it deserves it, it's an interesting topics, and there are plentiful good sources. ] makes very good points regarding the quality and the quantity of the Katz quote; if the same information is available from other sources, it would be far preferable to the less verifiable assertions of the quote. (I'm sure the assertions in the quote can be supported by data from somewhere; but we can do better than that.) I'm willing to unprotect the article so people can work on other aspects of it, if the principles (you know who you are) will agree to work out a consensus here rather than edit warring. Let's all assume good faith here -- especially of those with strong opinions we disagree with. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
**Also, it's pretty bad faith to do the same edit war on multiple pages. Perhaps don't do that. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shmuel Katz is WP:RS and WP:V per google scholar and the fact his book is published on Bantam Books and very popular and respected. Nobody showed anything to contradict that except their own POV and political interests. ] 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
: Amoruso, you are so entertaining that it will be a pity when you are banned. (It has to be done though, Misplaced Pages comes first.) I didn't realise that being published by Bantam Books was a stamp of correctness until now, thanks for putting me onto that. I'll start quoting from Karl Korff's "THE ROSWELL UFO CRASH" (Bantam Books, 2000) immediately. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who will ban me ? Misplaced Pages does come first, which is why they'll strip you of your adminstatorship status which is ridicilous, and then ban you for your consistent vandalism of well sourced respected scholar materials like Shmuel Katz. Stop disrupting wikipedia. Google scholar of battleground: and google: end of story. ] 12:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:A plea, all around, please, to observe ]. --] 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Amoruso, I clicked on the Google Scholar link you provided, but it returns only six citations of the book, and none, so far as I can tell, is from a scholarly publication. The link you provided was kind of miscellaneous: is the link to the hits in the actual citation index. As a basis for comparison, and are the citation hits, a total of 105, for the two editions of Morris' ''Birth of the Palestian Refugee problem'', and they appear almost all to be hits on articles from scholarly journals. Additionally, Google Scholar is still very beta. I don't know what the standard resource historians for tracking citations is because this is not my field, but I presume it's the '']''. There may also be relevant citations in the ''],'' which is the most commonly-used tool in my field. I don't think either database is available online, but the next time I make a trip to the university library I'd be glad to check each as a neutral way to measure the relative scholarly profiles of sources editors wish to include. If someone would provide a list (''brief'', because I have a life outside of WP) of the works they want checked in the citation indexes, I'll volunteer to do the legwork. --] 14:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rrburke. Btw, you ''should'' cite Kal Korff's book. I'd assume you didn't just google to try to find a Bantam book that sounds ridicilous (]) but you were terribly mistaken. It's a very good research and one of its conclusion actually is that there were ''no'' UFO's in that incident. You cited a good example of a book that did research on this subject and therefore on subjects relating to Roswell he's an excellent source. On subjects relating to the Arab Israeli conflict, Katz is an excellent source. Quite simple. In fact, Kal IS indeed cited quite largely in wikipedia here ], feel free to add more citations although it seems his book was published by Prometheus Books and not Bantam books. ] 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
: I made a mistake in choosing Korff's book as an example. I should have chosen "NEW MOON ASTROLOGY: Using New Moon Power Days To Change and Revitalize Your Life" (Bantam, 2001), "Channeling, How to Reach Out to Your Spirit Guides" (Bantam, 1988), or something like that. But anyway, it would be more appropriate to see what type of book Bantam was publishing in the early 1970s when they published Katz's book. How about ] by Erich von Däniken? That and other similar von Däniken rubbish was published by Bantam at the same time as they published Katz. And, yes, they also published lots of UFO books, astrology, pyramidology, Bermuda triangle, nonsense of all sorts. You claim that being published by Bantam indicates the quality of the book; I disagree, but have it your way. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Bantam books publishes both fiction and non fiction. Katz's work is classed as non fiction. Bantam is one of the most successful publishers of the U.S. It also is the largest mass market paperback publisher in the U.S. It doesn't mean every book is quality but it does mean that they won't be publishing books of notorious people as in Nazis, terrorists etc. If they published his book under so much prestige then they double checked his references and credentials, just an example. There's no difference between books about UFO's, Astrology etc and books about Arab Israeli conflict. Each book deals with its own expertise. ] 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::: "they double checked his references and credentials" - that shows you don't know anything about publishing. Only a small number of publishers like university presses appoint experts to report on the academic quality of their books, and even those experts don't go through the book checking all the citations. General publishers like Bantam appoint someone to work with the author on the writing standard (grammar etc) and someone to check for legal problems; apart from that, and most importantly, they care about sales. Btw, most of the junk books I mentioned were published as non-fiction. The publishers' definition of "non-fiction" is that the book claims to be true. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: No you're wrong. Nazi symphatizers for example won't be able to publish in Bantam books, they have their own dubious publications, as well as people with notorious credibility that make outlandish claims as in the Iraqi Jews conspiracy. Bantam books is the most mainstream publication. This book is one of the most cited in arab israeli conflict issues by many scholars. it's cited by so many respected sources that it's a non issue really.

::::Example: Christopher Barder gained a Foundation Scholarship in History at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and has for some years been both head of history and politics at an Oxford Tutorial college, as well as a tutor for the University of Bath. It's one of the first hits he used battleground as reference. (564 hits for the english version's book) . Really . ] 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Those 564 are raw Google search hits, not Google Scholar citation hits. The citation hits in Google Scholar are . There are a total of six, and none appear to be from scholarly journals. --] 07:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Have you read what I wrote here? Example- Christopher Barder gained a Foundation Scholarship in History at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and has for some years been both head of history and politics at an Oxford Tutorial college, as well as a tutor for the University of Bath. It's one of the first hits he used battleground as reference. (564 hits for the english version's book) . Really . ] 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Google scholar only gives partial results you can see the many articles of scholars who quoted him - google scholar gives 6 for the book which is quite a lot btw compared to many history books. ] 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: One of them is from the journal "Women in Judaism", which is scholarly as far as I know. However, its citation is not to Katz as a source of facts, but just as an example of the type of literature that a certain right-wing woman was reading (along with Arafat's interview in ''Playboy''). There's nothing here in support of Katz as a source. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this such a dilemma? Why don't we just say "Katz found that..." or "Katz says that..." and have it over with. --] 05:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

: Because we are supposed to use "reliable sources". Since there are a large number of serious scholars in this field, with all shades of political opinion, we can cover the subject perfectly well with quality citations and not bother about all the activists and propagandists. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::Zero, could I ask you to ask you to enumerate what you see as the "major points of view" (to quote ]) on this topic, identify one or two representative scholars or works for each view and offer an opinion about the relative scholarly profiles of each view so as to judge the relative prominence they ought to be accorded in the article? --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::So your judgement on Katz is better than the one of Christopher Barder ? Did you also "gain a Foundation Scholarship in History at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and were you also for some years both head of history and politics at an Oxford Tutorial college, as well as a tutor for the University of Bath." (example) ] 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Could we: a) ] discussions; b) add comments to the bottom and not interpose and displace others' earlier comments, which may be awaiting a reply; c) stick to the topic of improving the article? --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::(a)+(b): sure (it didn't displace anything but sorry if it bothered you it was put on top accidentally). (c) of course. Like I showed you here, which you didn't address, no problem to cite Katz as persons like Christopher Barder cite him. Cheers. ] 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think you may have partly misunderstood Mr. Barder's bio. The statement that he was "head of history and politics at a tutorial college in Oxford" doesn't mean that he was on the faculty ''at Oxford University''; it means he was a schoolteacher ''in'' Oxford, ''the city''. A tutorial college -- perhaps he worked at -- is a kind of high school that typically prepares students for their ] or ] in preparation for university. This is honest work, but it hardly qualifies one as an expert on the Middle East. "A tutorial college in Oxford" does not imply an affiliation with the university. I note that Mr. Barder's only other academic employment seems to have been as a part time tutor at Bath University. He has also authored some articles.

:::::More importantly, though, this is just not the way to go about measuring academic profile anyway. One neutral way to do it would be, as I've suggested more than once to no reply, to compare how frequently sources are cited in the relevant citation indexes. I've offered to go and look up citations on whatever sources other people propose. As I mentioned in two earlier posts, Google Scholar, a beta resource not yet widely used by scholars, returns six hits on the Katz book, with few from scholarly journals, compared with well over a hundred for Morris' ''Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem,'' to use a familiar example. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Dear Burke, please have a look out for ''"Ya'ir"'', a ''"Biographical Novel"'' about the leader of the Stern Gang (Abraham ("Yair") Stern), and tell us whether it's fit to be used as ]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lehi#Book_of_Moshe_Shamir for background.
::::::] 07:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Rrburke, if you check many other books they sometimes have very few hits, it's not a proof of anything - search the google link and see many articles by differnet professors etc. I don't know if Barder is an expert but he's certainly a distinguished figure '''and a scholar'''. Regardless, Everything Katz says is backed by references, so you realise why it doesn't matter. His book is really a secondary source. Palestineremembered, please stop ruining talk pages and changing discussions. That book is RS of course but it's not used directly it's used as a secondary source and everything cited from there has an additional source from a different RS. ] 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, we can just write "Katz says this..." or "Katz says that...", I don't see it as a big deal. His work is widely-read scholarly material. --] 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:If there was any decent scholarship in Katz, then I'm sure you'd provide evidence of it.
:In the meantime, we only have clips such as the one at the beginning of this section, which don't look much like reputable evidence of anything.
:] 23:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

He's quoted in google scholar I don't know of any binding definition of scholar though nor is it any requirement for him to be for ] which he is, while he has full references for anything. ] 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

== Syria ==

Why isn't Syria included in the "Treatment in Arab countries" section? --] 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know, possibly because it doesn't conform to the "look how nasty the Arabs are to the Palestinians" model? But perhaps I'm just being paranoid. It should be included. It's easy to find data on it (the basic situation is that Palestinians have exactly the same rights as Syrian citizens except the right to own land and other citizenship-related rights such as voting in elections. Obviously the latter is a major issue for people living in Syria.) While I'm at it, surely a distinction should be drawn between areas hosting Palestinian refugees as such (West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt pre-1967) and states into which refugees have later immigrated such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states? ] | ] 16:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:29, 9 December 2024

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:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestinian refugees 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: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEconomics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGlobalization Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Misplaced Pages.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestinians in Egypt

Hello, I've noticed this article does not discuss the palestinians that went to Egypt after 1948 even though there is a large number of them Dana Saber (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Good question I was about to ask the same thing. Also not mentioned is that every arab country that accepted palestinian refugees after 1948 have had their governments attacked by the refugees. The Black September was an armed conflict in Jordan in the early 70's that involved a violent government takeover attempt by the palestinian refugees. Similar events happened in every arab country that accepted palestinian refugees. Dionyseus (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
So which similar event happened in Egypt? Zero 00:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, NOT war refugees /Gaza strip: demogr / Refugees before WWII

- Refugees are systematically as war refugees here which is giving a wrong impression to readers.Should Arabe ountries had won that war then maybe Palestinians could have stayed but it is not even certain. Europe might have come to the rescue. So, the real reason is the estabishment of Israel.

(To me it is a bit the same as claiming that the purge of all Jews (but now only: all European diaspora) was due to the fact that Arabs had lost this war, out of pride. In reality it was a reaction to a project (Israel) they had always been opposed to.)


So it weems unfair to claim that Palestinians were refugees of a war that would never had happened without zionism.

2. There were 250'000 refugees in Gaza strip beginning of 1950 and a total population of 1'760^000 in 2015 based on my research. The number of refugees and their descents cannot possibly be 550'000. I couldn't fin a chart on UNWRA . It is really difficult to extract facts from there. I used a Website called Statistica (refresh browser each time).

3. There were refugees before WWWII. Whole villages erased and people thrown out and put on road by very hot wether. I'll try to find a source.

4. Anything more precise about West Bank? When they arrived and how many? (I struggle to find figuress) Thank you. Leaving Neveland (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The claim about Benny Morris is incorrect and footnote 32 supporting this position is taken out of context.

The line currently reads, According to historian Benny Morris, the expulsion was planned and encouraged by the Zionist leadership.

However it should read: According to historian Benny Morris, expulsion was encouraged by some Zionist leaders during parts of the 1948 war, although it was never established policy.

The beginning of the footnote 2601:45:4001:AA60:C8DD:9A25:DC43:F6BF (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is "citizen" the right word in the first sentence?

Did the british mandate even have a concept of a citizen of mandate palestine? DMH223344 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, see Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925. But the word is not properly used in the first sentence. Actually the UNRWA definition specifies persons habitually resident in Palestine for two years, rather than citizens. This made the biggest difference for Jews, who by and large were not Palestinian citizens. Jews were later excluded on Israel's request. Zero 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"Displaced Palestinian Jews" ???

In the third paragraph, the author writes about "displaced Palestinian Jews". I don't think there is such a thing... What are they? Who are they? Are there any sources confirming their existence? OrF8 (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a link to Palestinian Jews. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
My question is not about Palestinian Jews, but about "Displaced Palestinian Jews". There is a major difference OrF8 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
In that case you can read through WP:ARBECR and WP:EDITXY. Editors without the extended confirmed privilege like yourself are only entitled to submit edit requests. If you would like to submit an edit request, do that. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
How do I submit an edit request? OrF8 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Edit_requests#Making_requests. You can use Misplaced Pages:Edit_Request_Wizard, or you can just write the request here, but it's best to follow guidelines in WP:EDITXY. Following that guideline gives the edit request the best chance of being accepted by an extended confirmed editor i.e. the request should be Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! OrF8 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: