Talk:Palestinian right of return

Main opposition to the right of return

In my opinion the section “Opponents of the right of return hold…..” dose not in fact contain the main opposition to the right of return, but rather a weak watered down version that does not give the highlights of the objection the right of return.

A balanced article would use a summary of the more significant objections therefore I suggest:

Israel claims: that following hostilities in 1948, the young Israel could not survive with a fifth column; that the open denial of Israel’s right to exist by majority of Palestinian refugees, exclude them from the nonbinding UN resolution 194 “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors” ; that the ‘right of return’ is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel; that unlike hundreds of millions of refugees rehabilitated in the late 1940’s the Palestinians were the only ones that were not rehabilitated; that UNRWA, has served to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem rather than solve it; that the Palestinian refugees should have been rehabilitated in the late 1940’s by the neighboring Arab countries, just as Israel has rehabilitated the influx of Jewish Arab refugees escaping persecution in Arab countries; that the Arab failure to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees is long term strategy to destroy Israel.

Instead of: Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand.[5] The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement.[6][7] Other disputed aspects include the issue of the territorial unit to which Palestinian self-determination would attach, the context (whether primarily humanitarian or political) within which the right is being advanced, and the universality of the principles advocated or established to other (current and former) refugee situations.[8]

Unfortunately my editing has been repeatedly undone by Sean.hoyland without any explanation. I am a new user and do not know how to get assistance to resolve this issue. I would appreciate advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raanang02 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For an explanation, see the edit summary. From here, click the "Article" tag, then the "View history" tag. You will see your edits listed there as your IP address 212.185.162.10 (along with other edits). You will also see my edit summary "rv 212.185.162.10 Please review your editing obligations here. See WP:NPOV and WP:V". Those links will take you to the descriptions of 2 important policies that you should read. WP:NPOV deals with neutrality and WP:V deals with verifiability. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Original research - note to IP editor from 86.108.nnn.nnn range

IP editor, the paragraphs you are repeatedly inserting into this article (as well as to Right of return) are unsourced. They appear to be your own personal viewpoints, created through original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review our policy against origianl research, especially the part about using material published by reliable sources in a way that constitutes original research. Also, consider getting a user account, rather than utilizing multiple IP addresses, whcih could lead to having some of those blocked under our sockpuppet policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Blocked NoCal100 sockpuppet

Meanwhile I will try a compromise edit version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.185.162.10 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The message above wasn't addressed to you. It's an old message. When you try a compromise edit version please ensure that it complies with WP:V i.e. it must be based on one or more published reliable sources and it must cite the source or sources. If the content does not cite a reliable source you can be sure it will be removed. English Wikipedia has over 4 million articles and you are editing one of its most contentious articles, so please bear that in mind. Please read the header at the top of the page, "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES", and familiarize yourself with the special rules that apply to all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statement, compensation individual, not national.

The statement in the lead "possibly while compensating the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries as well" implies that the property claims of the Mizrahs should be dealt with on a national level. This was only ever a minority view-point and has been abandoned.

A 2003 article in Haaretz puts the idea down to The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) and one man, Yaakov Meron, then head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Haaretz says "In the end, the ministry closed the tap on the modest flow of funds it had transferred to WOJAC. Then justice minister Yossi Beilin fired Yaakov Meron from the Arab legal affairs department. Today, no serious researcher in Israel or overseas embraces WOJAC's extreme claims."

Note that it is national claims that are abandoned, not individual claims, the article also says "Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis)." PR^talk 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No article on Al-Awda group??

Certainly notable enough. I just beefed up American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and mentioned it's position supporting it, FYI. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Right of Return" Plan to Replace Israel with Islamic Caliphate?

Years ago, I read an interesting article (I believe it was a transcript/translation of an interview on French TV, or somewhere else in Europe) of a senior Palestinian leader. IN response to the interviewer asking 'If Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel under the terms you seek, what next?' (paraphrasing obviously.... ) The response was that Palestinians would immediately take political control of Israel, rename it "Palestine," and establish a strict Islamic caliphate. When asked if this would be fair to the Christians and Jews in the newly named country, his response was an offhand suggestion that some groups are foreign introductions and don't have a right to exist there in the first place. QUESTION: I can't find that interview again, and suspect it may have been a fraud. Has anyone else run across it, or similar reliably sourced material? If it can be found and vetted, it would be a great source of insight for the article.24.21.105.252 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find more people saying it today than back then since so many have been thrown into extremism by what they consider to be US/Israel imperialism. Just like you can find lots of Israelis who want to kick out all the Arabs from the country. What might be interesting is to compare polls of both populations (and I've seen a bunch) and see which population has the most extremists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll give your thoughts all the consideration they're due.24.21.105.252 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PoV tag

I removed the POV tag which hasn't been discussed for over a year for it to reverted straight away with Looks highly POV and needs tag - "right of return is a political position or principle" in the lead? Res 194 re-affirms it as an inalienable right.). We do not leave POV tags on article indefinitely, please identify these "looks highly pov" and discuss re-wording to achieve concensus. If there are to be no further discussion on these POV issues in the near future then I will re-remove the tag. ^Khukri 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have either the time or the knowledge to improve this article. But I do know that the "Palestinian Right of Return" is considered an "inalienable right" by the world community. So strongly do they feel about it that they re-iterate it every year (I think I have that right). Under such circumstances, calling it a "political position or principle" in the lead is hugely POV, and the article needs tagging as such. Alternatively, we could have a tag saying "For reasons outside our control, it is impossible to provide an article on this subject in the I-P conflict area to the standard that the rest of Wikipedia aspires to". PR^talk 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, though not being an expert on the subject, "Palestinian Right of Return" isn't viewed in the same light by the "world community" there are differing view points on what this means, not just on the Arab/Israelis sides but also what it means to the world community as a whole, as the article demonstrates. I think the lede succinctly states the two principle view points and am at pains at the moment to see how this is in favour of one side of the argument or the other. Also it is not generally accepted practice to slap a PoV tag on an article if you are not willing to aid with its resolution. Also looking at your edit summary, as I understand it UN 194 wan't a binding treaty which doesn't make it an unalienable right, looking at the article page? Looking at it all I need to do is add the word disputed to that sentence and I believe it removes your PoV issue. ^Khukri 12:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Both world opinion (eg UN Resolution 194 passed overwhelmingly every year for 60 years) and the UDHR, which says "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family .... to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" make nonsense of the claim in the lead that the right of return that is a "a political position or principle" as if this was a negotiating point. The basis of this "right" goes back still earlier, eg 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which defined the deportation of civilians as both a war crime and a crime against humanity.

And there is much else that is severely POV, requiring a tag eg "The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict" - when there is no such controversy except amongst extremists. 95 or 98% of the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, with the exact circumstances carefully recorded eg the strongly Zionist Morris in "Birth", A - Abandonment on Arab orders, C - Influence of nearby town's fall, E - Expulsion by Jewish forces, F - Fear of being caught up in fighting, M - Military assault on settlement, W Whispering campaigns - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF. Morris finds there were 5 villages (and half of Haifa) in category A, 38 unknown and 346 in the other categories (though there is sometimes some overlap). Every other investigator finds more villages (or groups) and says the same. There is no controversy. PR^talk 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Accusation: And there is much else that is severely POV, requiring a tag eg 'The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict' - when there is no such controversy except amongst extremists. ... There is no controversy."
• The Reality: I believe Avi Shlaim, hardly an extremist, would disagree with you that there is no controversy among historians in this excellent article on the scholarly debate that has gone on among Middle East historians since the 1980s titled "The War of the Israeli Historians." I took the liberty of citing the Shlaim article as a source in this article for the sentence that PalestineRemembered claims is "severely POV" and "extremist." The existence of a scholarly debate is also self evident from the contents of this Wikipedia article. --GHcool (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see reference to controversy about the actual Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus in Shlaim's 2003 article - his entire thesis is summed up in his words "there is no longer a consensus among the original group of new historians that Israel is the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East". Controversy concerns only recent and peripheral matters, such as whether to dig up potentially 100s of bodies at Tantura in 1998, the integrity of Palestinian negotiators in 2000 and Morris's conversion to the right-wing in 2002. Nothing to do with the 1948 ethnic cleansing, which everyone now accepts (and for which Morris remains the most accessible source). The current state of this article is severely POV and it needs tagging as such. PR^talk 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Shlaim details the controversy among historians in the article. Its as plain as day and I can dig up dozens of more sources saying the same thing. Shlaim is considered to be on the political left and even he accepts that there has been a controversy among historians. For a political right analysis (and acceptance) of the controversy, I recommend Efraim Karsh's article here. I am sure Karsh is not one of PalestineRemembered's favorite historians, but he is a historian nonetheless and not an extremist by any measure. --GHcool (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversies described by Shlaim in that article bear no relationship to "The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict", which are contested by nobody other than deniers.

Hence, this is a severely POV article and needs tagging as such. PR^talk 11:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How do they bear no relationship, I read though what GHcool posted and seems to imply that the cause of the exodus was being debated by historians, and not just deniers. Explain please? ^Khukri 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a controversy about the causes of the 1948 exodus among historians. It is even what of the biggest controversy. I think it is explained in Shlaim's article but I don't see this describe in the article of Karsh. This latest rather attack the other and to paraphrase him, "report [his] truth"... So, it is rather a primary source rather than a secondary source for the controversy. Note that Shlaim is not the best source either, being part of the conflict. I have a source in French that could be accpetable but it is in French... So this "obvious think" when you see all the theories about the topic can hardly be sourced in English... Ceedjee (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If primary sources should be given, I would suggest these :

• Benny Morris, 1989, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge University Press;
• Benny Morris, 1991, 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians, Clarendon Press, Oxford;
• Walid Khalidi, 1992, All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies;
• Nur Masalha, 1992, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, Institue for Palestine Studies;
• Efraim Karsh, 1997, Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians", Cass;
• Benny Morris, 2004, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press;
• Yoav Gelber, 2006, Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Oxford University Press;
• Ilan Pappé, 2006, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, OneWorld

I think these are the main books published on the topic and the due:weight is more or less respected. Ceedjee (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

supporters, opponents, and criticisms

why are there sections on both "opponents" and "criticisms"? these two are the same and should be merged and shortened to reflect due weight for these views. the international community supports the right of return, and only israel disputes it, therefore this article should reflect that without giving so much weight to a small minority view. untwirl(talk) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Israels viewpoints are highly relevant to the article, as they are party to the conflict. However, as it stands now in the article the supporters and objectors viewpoints are very, very muddled. Especially the objectors article contains the same information over and over. There is also a good amount of weasel-wording thrown in for good measure.83.250.152.246 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Above comment by me - forgot to log in. Snipanlol (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "international community" is just a euphemism for the United Nations—a body of foreign politicians made up mostly of third-world autocratic regimes that do not even represent their own people. Whose is the small minority view now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamgeeGardener (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. Talk pages are for discussing proposed changes to article content based on Wikipedia's policies and reliable sources. It's not a forum for people to post personal opinions. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps people should not post ridiculous personal opinions describing pro-Israel positions as a "small minority view." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamgeeGardener (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Objectors viewpoints (2009)

Some people here seem to think they get to decide the opposing side's views.
The sources say that the view is that a non-Jewish majority means the destruction (one source says "eradication") of Israel. That means you don't get to water it down with weasel words just because you don't like seeing the phrase "destruction of Israel".
The sources say that the view is that a minority of Jews would be at the mercy of the Muslims means that that's the view they represent even if you think that kind of view is biased or racist or whatever.
The sources say that the view is that there was no right of return or compensation offered to the Jews that fled Arab countries, and that the Arab governments were complicit in this, then that's what wikipedia should say.

That said, I'm open to changing "at the mercy of the Muslims" to "at the mercy of a hostile Majority" if that makes anyone feel better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You dont get to present opinions as fact, as in "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel". You have to present them as opinions and you have to use NPOV language. There is nothing wrong with how it is worded now, it should in fact be further qualified by explicitly citing who said these things. nableezy - 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a section titled "viewpoints". It's about opinions. The "some people think that..." part is implied.
The opinion that losing the Jewish majority would essentially be the destruction of Israel is pretty common, as I'm sure you're aware.
Do you suggest we go over both sections and qualify everything? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Its as if you didnt pay any attention to what I wrote. If it is opinion then PHRASE THE TEXT AS OPINION. When you say "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel" in WP's narrative voice you are not phrasing it as opinion, you are phrasing it as a fact. nableezy - 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't specifying that the following bullets are opinions or arguments solve your problem with presenting this as fact? It is a fact that these are arguments used by opponents of a right of return. That is what is being said in the narrative voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what is said in the narrative voice is "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel" as a conclusion to the opinions presented. What is wrong with how it is phrased now? nableezy - 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't say what the source says. The source says this will be the destruction of "Israel" not "the Jewish state of Israel". Second, that's not the way the supporters viewpoints section is worded. But if you want me to make the two similar by rephrasing the other section to include "it has been argued" all over the place, we can do it your way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a ridiculous conversation if you don't mind my saying. First, there's nothing wrong with Israel being a Jewish state. This is in the declaration of independence and the reason for Israel being located on the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Secondly, I don't know how the source puts it, but it would seem that the fear is the end of the democratic structure rather than merely the Jewishness of the state. If the source doesn't explicitly cite the end of a Jewish state, then the addendum is redundant and speculative (read: false assumption) on the intentions of the source.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilton not WP:RS

It seems to me there is a lot of edit warring over what is NOT a WP:RS source. The source http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/israel_andthepalestinerightofreturn51603.html is just one of a bunch of self-published discussion papers on http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/, a not very official Stanford outlet. This one is by - who? Ronald Hilton - 5/16/03 did this one. Is he a freshman? A PhD? No information. It's acceptable to use information he quotes from - if you independently verify that it is true. But he should not be used as a source. We don't really have to go to WP:RSN on this, do we?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

i viewed the page, and agree that it isn't a RS. some of the links he provides may be, but any info relying on this ref should be scrapped and rewritten with attribution to the correct sources. untwirl(talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

hm. well, i kinda messed that up by duplicating a ref. lets see if i can fix it. untwirl(talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

==Who is a refugee?==

This indicates that descendants are covered under the definition. I realize that some people object to this definition; nevertheless, it's the definition the UN uses in this particular case. Linking to a more general UN resolution on the definition of refugees is original research and inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what you're doing is original research. Some people are of the opinion that descendants are not refugees. You don't get to hide their opinion just because you don't like it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, UNRWA can only decide who they consider a refugee for the purpose of distributing aid. They don't make international law. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically

I'm trying to make it clear that the list of examples provided for the first bullet in the objectors viewpoints section is not a comprehensive list. How about "Some specific examples used by objectors for the argument above include:"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

how about just adding "these include" and leaving out the rest? Note that "some" is usually considered to be a weasal word. Tiamut^talk 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to similar situations?

Could a section be created drawing parallels to other cases of wartime population displacements and treatment of the right of return of refugees in the aftermath? The question of the right of Serbian refugees to return to Croatia, return of their pre-war property and various lost privileges (lost pensions, lost public housing rights etc) has been a prominent issue in assessment of human rights in Croatia (and quite present in national media), including in the context of EU accession process. As I understand it, formally this obligation is accepted by the Croatian governments, but its implementation is often criticized for extreme slowness for various reasons (eg http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/croatia0906webwcover.pdf). The implementation of this is evaluated in context of Copenhagen criteria , so some measure of improvement is condition for joining the Union (eg http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/files/file/progres%20report/CROATIA%202009%20PROGRESS%20REPORT.pdf , pg 15). I should mention that the official position of Croatia has been also that Serbs were invited to stay but were ordered to leave by their own leaders (making no claim that this is actually true or not, that's not my point) - but apparently this was not considered contradictory with formally having an obligation for enabling their return. I'd be very interesting if there are relevant legal differences between this case and Palestinian return. Aryah (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source check failed

I like to check references. And the following sentence has three sources, and not one of them says what it says it says.

• "Proponents of the right of return hold that it is an inalienable and basic human right, whose applicability both generally and specifically to the Palestinians is protected under international law.

I think I can say with certainty, that none of the articles refer to the international law or basic human rights at all. The first says the right of return is "sacred," and the second is an opinion piece in which the author admits his opinion is "contrary to the leading opinions of the American-European politicians and media." He references Wikipedia as his source. There is a bibliography but no footnotes. The last article is an interview with an Hamas spokesman, arguing for the so-called Saudi peace plan, which was non-starter. Nothing at all to support the sentence as written. What's up with this? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the Right of Return include the right to have property returned, and how much property is involved?

Logically it must, because otherwise where would people return to? My rough research indicates that approximately 17,000km2 of land was confiscated without compensation. Would be great if someone could find reliable sources & add as it would help explain the situation!93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

have added following passage adapted from israeli property law article - please redact/improve/discuss. In 1945, of 26.4 million dunams of land in Mandate Palestine, 12.8 million was owned by Arabs, 1.5 million by Jews, 1.5 million was public land and 10.6 millions constituted the desertic Beersheba district (Negev). By 1949, s. Israel controlled 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20 500 km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandate Palestine: 8% (approx. 1,650 km²) were privately controlled by Jews, 6% (approx. 1,300 km²) by Arabs, with the remaining 86% was public land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the right only include those expelled during wars?

I doubt it, and will look for sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Myths and Facts

There are things that the JVL hosts that are reliable sources, however Myths & Facts by Mitchell Bard is a self-published work by a non-expert. It is not a reliable source, and I am once again removing that source. Repeated insertions absent a consensus that it is a reliable sources will be reported. nableezy - 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1. You just violated this article's 1RR rule. No wait, read Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" (added later, 24December).

2. Your reasons given to revert/delete the material are based on falsehoods; you are using the following easily-exposed lies to demean the source:

A. "Non-expert"?

i.) The author's PhD & other uni studies (@ USA's top-ranking uni's, at that) are pertinent to this article's subject matter as seen by clicking here combined with...

ii.) He's recognized as a notable expert from BOTH the political right (see last link) AND the left (Huff Post), and has...

iii.) Accolades or recognition about the JewishVirtualLibrary.com site from: Assoc of College & Research Libraries, as well as PBS, CNN, NYTimes, Fox, LATimes, Bloomberg, BBC, BusinessWeek, USA Today, & CBS... AND Britannica & Study Web... AND King's College, London, MSU, & other uni's.

iv.) The author's[2] material which I specifically linked to/cited, and especially his most politically-controversial claims therein, DOES conform to --and DOES cite other sources that ALSO themselves qualify as-- WP:V, RS, etc.

B. "Self-published" as you ALSO claimed?

It's published by AICE--and doesn't matter anyway because: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications": see "iii" above for a list of such "RELIABLE" third-parties (he's also published by Harper-Collins, & Palgrave-MacMillan among the many others here).

Nableezy, you don't get to UNILATERALLY decide what is WP:RS (thankfully, as you've obviously no clue what JVL's author's expert credentials, etc were...or if not clueless, you were PURPOSELY misrepresenting him as a "non-expert," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt & assume the former, because as the saying goes: "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance/incompetence." ;) ), and you have not sought a "consensus" before deleting a source that DOES meet WP guidelines. Based on all the facts about JVL that I gave you tonight, further removal of JVL as a source based on falsehoods, such as those you've (finally) presented, will result in YOU being "reported" (oh, was that threat supposed to scare me even as the FACTS are in my court?) -- as well as: (1.) reservation of the "equal right" that I or anyone else who reads this page should go ahead UNILATERALLY remove some of your beloved pro-Arab sources based on the reasoning in bold text below (see next topic), esp if you persist in UNILATERALLY deleting all material sourced from JVL: "What's good for the goose..." (but hopefully only until I find an unbiased ArbCom to come & review ALL the article's sources for WP:RS, especially the sources listed in bold below); or (2.) hopefully you INSTEAD choose to stop waging the virtualized/internet equivalent of "guerilla warfare" & become more civil/less childish & less dictatorial as if you WP:OWN this article, and then ppl can discuss the below list of sources in bold AND JVL, one-by-one, before removing anything in the below list unless they develop a FACT-BASED (not lie/ignorance-based) argument for which ones don't meet WP:RS BEFORE deleting ANY of them (as, unlike you, I don't have the hubris & bias to UNILATERALLY remove a source unless I've CHECKED to be CERTAIN I can give proper reasons rather than lies and to CHECK that it indeed doesn't meet WP:RS instead of remaining willfully-ignorant which leads to false allegations such as those you've made in TWO different reverts against DOCTOR Mitch Bard now, because you did NOT _check_ DOCTOR Bard's credentials--leading to a waste of my time AND your own), but I'm confident that an escalation to RfArb, if that's what you desire, will allow WP's top NEUTRAL contributors to determine that JVL meets WP:RS but that MANY sources in this article do not (such as many in the below list; see next topic).

My edits yesterday also addressed a concern that someone else noted (the 1st topic on this Talk page...so I'm not just crazy; someone else noticed what I did): a desire for the lede's pro-Israeli position to be given by someone (e.g. Dr. Mitchell Bard, as I used) who represents LOTS of ppl on the pro-Israel side & does NOT make weak/VAGUE arguments: ergo, my edits might also partially address Nice Guy's concerns as he expressed on this Talk page about what might be strawman attempts--but in a different section than Nice Guy was complaining about.

JH Robbins

72.48.252.105 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you revert once more I will report you for edit-warring (and I have most certainly have not violated the 1RR). Mitchell Bard's PhD is in Political Science, not Middle Eastern History or the modern Middle East. He has no particular expertise on the topic and doesn't have the credentials that allow you to bypass WP:SPS. Myths and Facts is not a reliable source, it is the self-published work by a non expert. You may not edit-war your way through this, and if you continue to revert you will find yourself blocked. And before you link the HuffPo again, could you try thinking about just what in Mitchell Bard is a writer and filmmaker.

He has written, produced and directed many independent film projects, including features, made-for-television movies and music videos. His feature film directorial debut, "Mergers & Acquisitions," was a festival favorite and is currently available on DVD in North America. He has also co-directed two music videos for Brian Vander Ark (lead singer of The Verve Pipe).

Mitchell is currently pursuing a graduate degree and serving as a teaching assistant at the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism & Mass Communication in Madison.

His weekly television column on the Toronto-based entertainment site WILDsound is currently on hiatus makes somebody reliable on the Palestinian right of return? nableezy - 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1. You are the only 1 here who has made 3 reverts (very close to a 3RR), and it takes two to edit-war, so if you're fair, you'll report yourself along with me. ("A hypocrite is something that is hard for me not to call out." nableezy - 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Well, we share 1 thing in common. ;) ) You might also wanna read: Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" & note that it's better to mark my work with rather than revert: Revert_only_when_necessary. But yes, on a technicality you didn't violate the letter of the 1RR.

2. From WP's lede for Political Science: "Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, (emphasis added) anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory." Also, "Mideast History" is only 1 of many peripheral issues pertaining to the primarily _political_ topics that I'm citing Bard as a source for, and he is recognized as an expert in the Mideast Conflict (in the related HISTORY) by the numerous & wide-ranging credible third parties including: click here, as well as in "iii" and "i" above, who also cite him regarding the HISTORY of the region, including but not limited to the history that's related to the Mideast Conflict.

3. My last post already cited WP:RS for WHY his credentials don't make him subject to WP:SPS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article (emph added) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"--note that the topic of this article is primarily political, but even if you wanna argue that it's primarily Mideast History, he still meets the above requirements b/c he's published by third-parties on many topics related to the Mideast Conflict, including the region's HISTORY as well as its politics. Also, Myths & Facts is NOT self-published (as AICE is a group, not 1 man Mitch Bard) -- certainly no more "self" published than many other websites that this article cited, as they are publishing (usually WITHOUT Bard's academic credentials nor citing their sources as Bard laboriously does) an article written by 1 of their members--just as Mitch Bard is an AICE member.

4. My apologies for hastily getting the wrong Mitchell Bard on ONE source, Huff Post... the political left like PBS & LA Times still recognize him -- despite that his political stances disagree with many of their viewers/readers.

I hope that we can just leave it here until 3rd parties add their commentary -- because maybe no one else will want to read what the dispute is about if this gets longer, and we've both had 2 chances to collect our thoughts & make our most important points for now.

JH Robbins

72.48.252.105 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kindly remove the RFC tag, this is not a properly formatted RFC. I did indeed revert 3 times over 28 hours, and twice in 14 hours. I did not however violate the 1RR, though Ill leave it as an exercise in reading comprehension for you to figure out why. One thing Ill never understand about you and your fellow warriors for the cause is that when somebody challenges some garbage source you bring, why dont you just look for better sources? As far as we've both had 2 chances to collect our thoughts & make our most important points for now, are you being serious or trying to get a laugh? And I didnt revert due to no consensus, please dont do that. I dont appreciate my clearly worded objections being distorted. I reverted due to you repeatedly placing an unreliable source into an "encyclopedia article". nableezy - 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I acknowledged above that you didn't violate 1RR on a technicality (speaking of reading comprehension...). But I still assert that your reverts violate Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus"; I suggest you read that page & let me know if you have an excuse for why you've reverted, in violation of the principles expressed on that page. :::2. You keep asserting that this is an "unreliable" source to obtain facts from, yet you've never provided any facts of your own to PROVE him an unreliable source; don't you know this is the diff between making an accusation, and proving an accusation? (Instead you've resorted to using subjective crybaby insults such as baselessly --i.e. without supporting facts-- calling Dr. Bard a "garbage" source. I could say you're a "garbage" source right back, but instead, to PROVE my assertions, I've pointed out the sections of WP:RS which make Bard a valid source, and point out below that just-as-biased sources were used in this article in the same CONTEXT as I'm using Bard as a source.) I'm not exactly a "warrior for any cause" as several editors have accused you of being (but that's more rehashing of nonsene, so getting back to the main dispute here...), but when Bard is cited in the CONTEXT of this page's sections which resemble the common WP writing-style of: "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" which, per section 4.7 of WP:RS, is SUPPOSED to include citations from POV sources (and this article & countless others already DO include many POV sources besides Bard/JVL), and this writing style therefore makes my references to Bard's work conform to WP:RS; so why are you stubbornly denying these facts ONLY for this one source which opposes your PERSONAL pov? It's openly acknowledged in WP's guidelines that having a POV doesn't make a source non-RS, so long as any opinionated/controversial/etc statements are denoted to the reader as being from a biased source. ~JH Robbins

• Comment: Myths and Facts is a highly unreliable piece of propaganda. There's no way it could be used on Wikipedia for statement of fact, whether attributed or not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have FACT-BASED reasons why [JVL] would violate WP:RS, or is this simply "Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it"? (JVL is being cited for the pro-Israel side within the writing-style of "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" -- so we are NOT claiming it's a neutral source but WP:RS section 4.7 allows for this.) Many websites cited in this article --and in WP overall-- are "propaganda" sites; that, alone, does not violate WP:RS (per section 4.7 of WP:RS). If you accuse JVL of being (factually) unreliable, please prove your own arguments that are (factually) reliable, e.g. by citing examples of "Myth & Facts" getting commonly-accepted facts wrong. ~JH Robbins
  • Frederico, I also notice that you're often accused of having an anti-Israel slant on your Talk page & of being an over-zealous reverter of others' additions. In all of your 1st 3 disputes on your Talk page, you have a habit of accusing that those who disagree w/you are all "propagandists," typically without offering any more factually-based critiques than that. You finally capitulated to an editor who told you, "you're confusing a potentially biased source with an unreliable source," but appear to be repeating this same confusion between "bias" issues & "reliability" issues 2 years later, for the reasons pointed out in my last paragraph. ~JH Robbins

• Comment This is not an issue of rs, but of neutrality. Bard's book is certainly a reliable source for his opinions, but the issue is the degree of weight they should be given. We need to establish this through secondary sources. TFD (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, and JVL is being cited for the pro-Israel side within the writing-style of "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" -- so it's not being claimed that JVL is a neutral source but WP:RS section 4.7 allows for this & it's consistent with the way this article (and in WP overall) cites such sources. ~JH Robbins
  • I'm not sure if you can answer, but I wonder why is this JVL source is being challenged on WP:RS, yet other openly- and self-admittedly biased/POV sources are in this article, mostly anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian I must note (which don't even have nearly the credentials & frequent citations/ref's as used by the JVL "Myth & Facts" author) and they've not been excised/reverted out of this article on the same grounds by Nableezy or others? (We'll also be left with barely any article if charges of "bias" alone are equally applied to all the sources in this article. I try to merely cite those sources by acknowledging any biased/opinionated/controversial statements to the reader in accord with section 4.7 of WP:RS--not by completely excising some POV sources & leaving in the other openly/admittedly POV sources.) ~JH Robbins

• Comment. Myths and Facts is not wp:rs (and highly not neutral). It is a propaganda book that claims answering to Myths in giving the Facts behind but in practice, the answers that are given are biaised and don't use sources properly. The purpose is not hidden. This is also a tertiary sources in a field where there are numerous secondary sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Myths and Facts often cites primary sources, per WP's own definition of a "secondary source". Please explain what you mean by it not "using sources properly" & how the other sources cited in this article do so "properly" i.e. in a way better than how Myths and Facts has cited each source? (if anything, most sources used herein aren't nearly as well-cites as Myths and Facts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would support using the source for noting opinions. Bard is not specifically educated in this field, but he is the executive director of the Jewish Virtual Library, and has been actively involved in discussion of Middle East policy. The IP's specific changes were not appropriate for several reasons, but this source is reliable for noting what a major figure on this subject believes. To that effect, the discussion should be over the content and whether the additions are giving due or undue weight to the opinions of this single figure.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get what's being asked by this RfC, but OP is wrong on WP policy. Nableezy's opinion about the expertise of the author is neither here nor there, and source reliability is not a function of neutrality. The Editorial Voice (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Responding to RFC as an independent editor. This article is seriously lacking. It needs radical improvement. Simply by creating headings of 'supporters views' and 'objectors views' turns what should be an encyclopeadic article into an opinion piece. Adding a section on Jewish exodus from Arab countries which is obviously not relevant unnecessarily provocative. This article should be properly restructured setting out the refugee position, UN position, Israeli position. Also, the quality of the article would be improved by including international law and international relations content. Input from an editor with an academic background in International Relations or International Law should be sought to edit the final article. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

List of this article's sources that should be checked for conformance to WP:RS & other WP guidelines

For All Editors & Nableezy: The below sources used in this article infringe on WP:RS (way more than JVL, Nableezy) -- especially those with notations in bold below; feel free to check the claims made below & discuss:

• standforfacts.org (no scholarly credentials in "about us," etc sections, nor do they cite their claims (as my source, Dr. Mitch Bard has, Nableezy)), likely the same: ArabHRA.org & Future of Freedom Foundation,
• Le_Monde_Diplomatique#Controversies (even runs 911 conspiracy theories & cites Steven E. Jones' commentary on explosives: he was already disciplined by a university for expounding outside his area of expertise (general physics, not demolition-engineering/explosives)[3] before this Monde Diplomatique article cited him expounding on explosives ONCE AGAIN, and Jones was the main contact between his group of Truther scientists who dubiously claimed to have had their paper regarding 911 peer-reviewed and the journal, which already had a history of repeated reports that it was falsely claiming to have peer-reviewed the papers it published -- causing the Journal's editor & only peer-reviewer, Pileni, to RESIGN stating that this Truther paper was published without her knowledge, and that she already suspected the journal was dishonest & this confirmed it in her mind ); Monde Diplomatique also is FAR-left/fringe),
• al Awda (even claimed a guy later convicted of "conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," Al-Arian, was likely only a “pattern of profiling and targeting the community" and Hussein Ibish (their rep who's cited separately in this WP article) claimed in al-awda's propaganda piece that "the presumption has to be that this is a political witch-hunt, a vendetta...very ugly post-9/11 McCarthyism": makes anyone sane trust their judgment & CREDIBILITY, right!? The presumption "HAS TO BE..."?!? They woulda been smarter to "never presume what cannot be proven" cos they & their editorial oversight standards got proven to be WROOOONNNNNNNNNG on life-and-death issues.),
• Benny Morris as critiqued for not fact-checking by many scholars who are cited on user_talk:Pluto2012 AND in the "Distorting Hertzl" & some other sections of: meforum.org/711/benny-morriss-reign-of-error-revisited, but Benny Morris gets his vengeance by critiquing the facts of 1 of his MANY critics, Efraim, as he joins MANY other lefties who all criticize the fact-checking of Efraim_Karsh#Praise_and_criticism (Efraim is also cited in this WP article & to be fair, I'll point out that BOTH sides can be attacked on WP:RS grounds, but that we also have "character assassins" on BOTH sides (including some with PhD's on BOTH sides) whose attacks aren't always themselves fact-based, but then more rarely we have SOLID/legit issues of poor fact-checking i.e. poor scholarliness even from some of the PhD's such as Benny Morris (or Ed Said below)--but I've seen most mainstream sources & other scholars praise JewishVirtualLibrary: if you have any fact-based & verifiable attacks though, please do show it.),
• israel-wat.com appears self-published (cached in google search) & is a dead link now anyway, and cablegate.wikileaks.org is sourced from a soldier who allegedly ADMITS (but trial isn't till 2013) to violating his oath of loyalty--a crime that goes to his CREDIBILITY
• Edward_Said#Intellectual_criticism wow 'nuff said about this guy in WP's well-cited 'criticisms' section about him, related but possibly more credible: Jrnl of Palestine Studies (editor was even cited by some as a PLO official, also he won an award in the name of Edward Said whose own veracity is repeatedly trounced in the last link)

My position is that SOME of this list of sources DO meet WP:RS, actually...BUT they just don't meet WP:RS SO strongly as JVL meets WP:RS (despite Nableezy's baseless/factually-unfounded accusation that JVL doesn't). THE ABOVE IS ALSO NOT MEANT TO BE A COMPLETE LIST, BUT MAY BE USEFUL TO THOSE BESIDES NABLEEZY WHO WANT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. 72.48.252.105 (talk)

Ive removed israel-wat as I agree it is self-published. I havent looked at some of the others, mostly because your rant is so indiscriminate in what it attacks that it makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously. If you would like to challenge Morris or Said or Le Monde Diplomatique, by all means, feel free. I wish you the best of luck. nableezy - 08:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gaza Strip was never part of Egypt

Egypt never claimed that Gaza was part of its sovereign territory. Egypt maintained a military occupation of the Gaza Strip, and from 1949-1959, Gaza was ruled by the internationally unrecognized "All-Palestine" government (which did not exercise power over "All-Palestine" and was not a government (like the term "1967 borders", which describes armistice lines that were established in 1949 and which are de jure not borders)). The article claims that Gaza was "a part" of Egypt. On the contrary, the fact is that either Gaza was Egyptian-occupied Israeli territory or an unincorporated territory under the administrative control of the Egyptian army. Since both Egypt and Israel both currently renounce any claims to Gaza, Gaza is either an unincorporated territory with no state claimants (and therefore Hamas could issue a unilateral declaration of independence), or some kind of de facto State of Hamastan, which is engaged in an ongoing war with Israel, but I digress. Anyway the article is wrong and I don't have the power to fix it because it's locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Objector's View Points - The Women 46

This is with regards to the [Viewpoints] section.

Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who hears not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. (An Nisa 4:46)

-Pickthall Translation

مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلا قَلِيلا (46) mizzo (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014

Please replace the template call

{{Israel-Palestinian peace process}}

just below the "Background" heading with

{{Israel-Palestinian peace process |Primary}}

so that the relevant list in the template is shown.

Thank you, 213.246.85.251 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! LittleMountain5 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Al-Awda

The usage and primary topic of Template:Noredierct is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stig Jagerskiold

The line added here can be found, verbatim, in a number of places, among them the Israeli MFA and the JCPA. I however am unable to locate a book called The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld. Can Averysoda (talk · contribs) please clarify where exactly he got this material. A publisher, or a date published, or any of the other items generally included when sourcing a book would be appreciated. nableezy - 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a book, it's an essay published in The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ed. Louis Henkin (New York: Columbia Univesity Press, 1981). It's referenced in a lot of high quality sources - [4].

This information is available to anyone who puts "The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld" into a google search. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for that, but that doesnt quite answer my question to the person who inserted the material. If that person actually found the original essay great, he or she can add the missing parts of the citation. But if they just pulled this from the JCPA or the MFA then we have a different problem. Id still like that answered, but thanks for answering a different question. nableezy - 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood where you said "A publisher, or a date published, or any of the other items generally included when sourcing a book would be appreciated" after saying "I however am unable to locate a book called The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld". But hey, I'm happy to help in any little way I can. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well if thats the actual source of the material then yeah absolutely, that is a big help. But for some reason, and maybe this is overly cynical, when I see the exact quote that is hosted at the JCPA and the MFA from a book that I cant find a digital copy of (ill head to a library to verify it no worries), I cant help but consider whether or not WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is an issue. nableezy - 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I read it in JCPA. I didn't know it was a crime. But NMMNG already found the original source, so the problem is resolved... I hope--Averysoda (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In that case you should read WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and formulate your refs accordingly in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll bear it in mind.--Averysoda (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please change his name in the article to "Stig Jägerskiöld"? ImTheIP (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Scope of the issue" section

This whole section is mostly WP:OR. "Supporter's viewpoints" and "objector's viewpoints" pick out random viewpoints, based on no criteria and no standards. An academic article is counterposed with trash websites like "Myths and Facts", counterposed with randomly chosen text from UN resolutions or Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all based on no discernible standard, except that some are "supporting" and same are "opposing".

International law is complex. We should be citing the opinions of scholars on this matter, who look at the relevant points, as to which principles are applicable and which are not, rather than randomly picking out aspects that WP editors think are important. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to necro this section. The whole section with "supporter's viewpoints" and "objector's viewpoints" is mostly trash. There's no indication of which objections are prominent and/or have merit. It's just a laundry list of every propaganda point from every side made ever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to "scope of the issue" section.

@LoveFerguson: Even though I think the whole section is very bad, this edit is not good. Randomly attributing some information to "opponents" does not make it worthy to be included on Wikipedia. What makes a random blog post on the Times of Israel website or a comment by the website "Myths and Facts" notable? I have reverted this for now. Please note that 4 people, including myself, have reverted this material. I see continuous edit warring to keep it in. Kindly get consensus first, before adding this material again, per WP:ONUS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it has the same notability than Hussein Ibish and the "Al-Awda" organization in the section dedicated for those who support the right of return, but I'll ask the user who added this paragraph in the first place.--LoveFerguson (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I added in was simply to present a common viewpoint. This is one of the most common arguments used by opponents of the right of return, and if we want to be fair to both advocates and objectors, I think it should be left in. That being said, I understand if you reverted it because it was a blog post, and I'll try to find a better source. However, please keep in mind that the two sections are basically just summing up common viewpoints of people for and against it, and there really is no reason not to include it.--RM (Be my friend) 04:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Position of Israeli govt. in the lead

Seems like pertinent information to have in the lead. No convincing reason to remove it that I'm finding. But feel free to argue otherwise. El_C 19:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C:, your edit description says "undid revision..." giving the impression that it was just a revert, and one that was intended "mainly" (your words) to correct the errors Wikipedia was giving. But...the diff view shows that you merged the 2 "opponent" paragraphs into a single paragraph, thereby inadvertently admitting that there is indeed a problem. It took only 1 byte to expose all of this. Did you think it was clever to risk your reputation with 1 byte? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Risk my reputation by following WP:PARAGRAPH, no, no I did not. El_C 20:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As a rule there should be no "discussions" in the lead. No pros and contras. The lasts edit introduced such material, which should be kept in sections, so I undid it. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Still, it would be pertinent if a correlation to the Law of Return (חוק השבות) was drawn in the lead. (How am I doing, reputation-wise? (Rhetorical: answer is nyet good.)) El_C 06:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I disagree or am not understanding your argument. Please explain, El_C. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser:, if you feel that the text placement is turning the lead into a "discussion", then relocating the content under the proponents paragraph would've made more sense than complete removal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Your point? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I restored the text. Now you'll get the point. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted a WP:ARBPIA warning on your talkpage. Also, why would your restoring help me understand? Debresser (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, it's not too complicated. If you bothered to look at my edit, you would've seen that I restored the content, placing it at a different location this time, thus addressing the concern you had stated. But it seems you insist on *complete* removal and on retaining the status quo, and so far, you have not engaged in the discussion (believe it or not, acting stupid on the talk page like one has absolutely no clue what me and others mean is a pretty obvious and lame way of faking participation). Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pointing to a certain symmetry that exists between the Law of Return and the Right of Return, both being rights of return, and both concerning people who inhabit the same locale. Does that sound like original research, though? El_C 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Israeli law of return and international right of return are two very different things. The former is a domestic law of Israel and the latter is in the UNDHR, but is not part of customary international law. They also deal with different classes of people. There's no point conflating the two. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with Al-Andalusi. If proponents make the comparison as an argument for their case, then that should be in the article. The place it was put in the second time, seems the logical context to do so. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We have an agreement. Restored in the agreed place. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just skimmed the discussion, but it seem very weird how the introduction section is structured. First summary, then proponents view, then opponents view and then the government of Israel's view. While the Israeli view certainly is important, it is unfair to have it in the lead if the government of Palestine's view isn't also included. But then it becomes to cluttered. I therefore propose to cut it out and place it under the "Objectors' viewpoints" in the article. ImTheIP (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Shameless plug for the related page Right of return which I've tried to improve. But it needs more work. ImTheIP (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources please

"The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement." Both the sources for this sentence are dead/broken. I have no idea how to repair them. Googling for '"ambit claim" israel' turns up nothing relevant. ImTheIP (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Shrike's edit

@Shrike: The editor Shrike added: "and since international laws governing the right of return that have come into force since then are not retroactive, they do not apply to Palestinian refugees" It is a controversial statement and there is no source attached to it. It therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore Shrike, I think you should self-revert your edit because by reverting my revert of your edit you ran afoul of the 1RR rule. ImTheIP (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I made only one revert and the source is attached http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=jil--Shrike (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The rule is "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" ImTheIP (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And how does I violated it?--Shrike (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: It is not possible to violate 1RR with a single edit. I don't think it is a great edit, though, for two reasons: (1) it just repeats what is in the quotation immediately following, (2) it can be read as an absolute statement in Wikipedia's voice, rather than as Kent's opinion (which Kent admits in his article). Zero^talk 09:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I think a revert of a revert violates the 1RR rule. That is what I have been told by the editor named @Icewhiz. Regardless, I also think that the edit doesn't improve the article. ImTheIP (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: Shrike was not the original author of the text he restored, so the rule did not forbid his edit. Zero^talk 01:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, true. It was the user Reneem. ImTheIP (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Palestinian right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120052049/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/6946.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/6946.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911064337/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC25IS33.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC25IS33.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713130340/http://www.justiceforjews.com/6page.pdf to http://www.justiceforjews.com/6page.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914170002/http://www.arabhra.org/factsheets/factsheet1.htm to http://www.arabhra.org/factsheets/factsheet1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507081443/http://www.editriceilponte.org/_files/HaaretzInterviewEnglish.pdf to http://www.editriceilponte.org/_files/HaaretzInterviewEnglish.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025115846/http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=252 to http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=252
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090424070231/http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/Refugees/9.html to http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/Refugees/9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404144028/http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/266/essay266.html to http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/266/essay266.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110824213046/http://points.stand4facts.org/bin/index.cgi?ChapterID=8 to http://points.stand4facts.org/bin/index.cgi?ChapterID=8
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420712985&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402102645/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/059/91/IMG/NR005991.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/059/91/IMG/NR005991.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927005655/http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/2654.htm to http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/2654.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

International character

I excised this block from the article:

All but one of the articles deal with "international conflicts", but the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was largely a civil struggle between Jews and Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate, and thus Israel was not a "belligerent occupant" in an "international conflict". Article 3, the only article that deals with "conflicts not of an international character", makes no mention of a right of return for displaced persons.

Because it was erroneously attributed to Alexander Safian. Someone has certainly made this argument, but who? Should it be attributed to Joseph E. Katz of the EretzYisroel blog or do we have a better attribution? Also should the objectors objections really be arranged by authorship? First Karsh, then Lapidoth, then Safian, then Kent... Not a great way to organize things. ImTheIP (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Objectors viewpoints

is riddled with unreliable sources and personal opinions. Also, the weight given to that has bloated beyond any reasonable proportion. I intend to remove the less than reliable sources. nableezy - 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources used are reliable for attributed opinion - The Guardian certainly is.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian piece you restored is from the comment section. Everybody is a reliable source for their own view. I see you restored a professor of literature. Would you care to explain what makes Amos Oz a reliable source for an article on the Palestinian right of return? I see you restored material sourced directly to JCPA and StandWithUs. Would you care to explain how either of those are a reliable source? Every person is a reliable source for their own attributed opinion, however that does not allow you to sidestep the requirements of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If there are reliable secondary sources for these opinions then we can discuss how much weight is given to them, however you are restoring non-reliable sources and doing so with a dishonest summary. The Guardian is not cited for anything. An op-ed by somebody is. And that does not in any way address the restoration of the other crap sources that you performed. Please justify those now. nableezy - 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Your cited reason - of unreliable source was incorrect as these are attributed opinions. However, there is a point in that we have too many opinions in the article, I've applied a similar standard of source opinions in other sections of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, im sorry, but just calling something an attributed opinion does not allow you to evade the requirement for using reliable sources. If an established expert in the field wrote an op-ed about the topic they could be used for an attributed opinion. Some random neocon in the Guardian (not referring to anybody in particular) cannot however be cited in an encyclopedia article just because you say "according to random neocon, the Palestinians are a made up people" (again not referring to any particular quote). You are still required to use reliable sources for that material. nableezy - 04:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: Why was Ruth Lapidoth removed? JCPA is not really the source, Lapidoth is. She is definitely an academic expert source. She has articles published in MPEPIL, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore - per a simple scholar search - she has published multiple times and is cited by others specifically on Palestinian right of return. Might be scope to use a few other published sources by her, though the advantage of the one cited is that it is easily accessible online.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Four paragraphs? She is at least way, way overdue, working for the AFAIK Michael Milken funded JCPA is not really a qualification. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

First off, JCPA is an academic think tank and is a qualification - however her more considerable accomplishments would be being a full professor at Hebrew University, being awarded the 2006 Israel Prize in law, and being a well published and cited scholar in the field of international law.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a good reason why these "academic think tanks" increasingly are called "stink tanks"...but let us agree to disagree there. My main point is that even if she had been a Nobel Prize winner, she does not deserve 4 paragraphs, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh, some think tanks are well regarded, others not. Regardless - when this is a post mandatory retirement position - it is not what the person is known for. You cut her out all together. There might be scope for summarizing/trimming, however this is not an individual's random opinion - but a couple of publications by a scholar on the topic at hand.Icewhiz (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite. And in my experience one should always look at who funds them first, Huldra (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Im fine with Lapdioth after further review, though Id rather it not be the JCPA pieces that are cited, but whatever. However, the pieces restored by יניב הורון are emphatically not reliably sourced. Icewhiz, you have been removing primary sources in another section of this article, so I assume you agree that this primary source should go? The "Purdue" cite appears to be a frickin homework assignment by David Horowitz and or an opinion piece early on in FPM's history, does anybody seriously think that is a reliable source? In the earlier piece of this revert the only thing the nytimes piece supports is that Israel claims to have no responsibility for it. Not the rather outlandish claim that Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state. Yaniv, you have repeatedly reintroduced unsourced or poorly sourced garbage into articles and made false edit-summaries. This is one such instance. Id ask that you self-revert now.nableezy - 04:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the NYT piece (attributed no less, to objecters)? As a viewpoint this is quite common, and Arab led civilian evacuations are well documented in several instances.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that the NYT piece does not even mention such claims has something to do with it. Zero^talk 08:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. It would help if people actually read what they were edit-warring over. nableezy - 15:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The "Purdue" source was actually a Word file posted at Purdue that included a FrontPage Magazine article of David Horowitz in defiance of copyright law. Horowitz' long rant concludes that Israel has been a failure and urges Jews to go to America instead! I think we should keep it in Yaniv's honor. Zero^talk 15:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

As poetic as that might be, I think the longstanding view of RSN that FPM is not a reliable source should be enforced here. And I will remove it myself if nobody else does. nableezy - 16:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, you have returned unsourced and poorly sourced crap to this article. You have ignored this talk page. I will be reverting your edit shortly. The next person to introduce bullshit into this article with lies that it is sourced will be reported. nableezy - 19:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, reported for "doing edits I don't like" or something.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that these are normally sourced paragraphs. I see more than one editor here who disagrees with you. Again, you can not enforce your personal standards on the community. The second fact is that all of these paragraphs represent a certain point of view which just happens to be contrary to yours.

You removed:

1. A UN document
2. Yaffa Zilbershats (twice)
3. mythsandfacts.org okay
4. The New York Times
5. Another UN document, also sourced to academic David Horowitz
6. timesofisrael.com okay
7. Joseph B. Schechtman

Please undo your edit (minus the 2 bad sources), or I will report you on WP:AE for vandalizing an article by removing multiple good sources, as well as unashamed POV editing. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I just checked the first "sources" which were added here:

• Sean Gannon a freelance writer, [5]
• a dead UN link [6]
• No link: Study of Discrimination in Respect of the Right of Everyone to Leave any Country, Including His Own, and to Return to His Country, Geneva, UN, 1963, UN Sales no. 64.XIV.2, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/220/Rev.1
• Yaffa Zilbershats: ok, she is a pass
• Joseph Schechtman, not ok
• http://www.mythsandfacts.org Good Lord, ...are we still citing this propaganda site, seriously??

Ok...I really cannot be bothered to check all...shouldnt we bring the sources here, for inspection first, before riddling the article with this rubbish? Huldra (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to avoid the thought "vandalism" when looking at Debresser's shameful revert. What other description is possible for

• Reinstating a clear SYNTH violation "even though the resolution was rejected at the time by Arab League members of the United Nations".
• Restoring some journalist's opinion as a source for "Israel has always contested.." when the journalist doesn't even make that claim.
• Restoring a dead domino link in place of a corrected link (definite vandalism).
• Restoring Myths and Facts.
• Restoring the weasel words "foreign press, and officials present at the time" as if these unqualified classes of people in general support the claim being made, when they don't.
• Restoring discredited lies cited to a NYT article that doesn't even contain them (more definite vandalism).
• Deleting a perfectly reasonable clarification tag on text that doesn't make sense (a clear violation of tag policy).
• Restoring a link to a copyvio on a student assignment page that has been discussed above (more clear vandalism as well as a copyright violation)
• Reinstating ungrammatical "Fordham University School of Law Law School" (definite vandalism)
• Restoring a blog by a "techie and a news junkie".

I stopped there. This is one of the most outrageous edits by any editor I've seen in years. The typical knee-jerk revert by יניב הורון is no better. Zero^talk 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The NYT cite seems spurious in the passage, however the passage itself, which is attributed to Karsh, and contains a citation to Karsh (A well known historian in the field) - is supported by But huge numbers of Palestinians were also driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or, more actively, to prevent them from becoming citizens of the Jewish state. In the largest and best-known example of such a forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes and almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea. And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states. in Karsh. So, no, this is not "discredited lies". And as some editors here should know - this is a long standing argument in this field and is well supported by documentary evidence in some cases. Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you actually are going to use that to say it isnt discredited bullshit? Id suggest reading the sources at 1948 Palestinian exodus#Haifa. Documentary evidence, and you want to bring up Haifa! nableezy - 05:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I was directly quoting Karsh above, I was not making a case for Haifa (For which there are long standing claims - Morris, pages 197-208 - but no historical cosnensus). That the Arab leadership ordered widespread evacuations is a long standing claim - and yes - it is supported by evidence in some cases.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Take the statement from Karsh: "And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states." I have looked through the list in Morris, 2004: of the 377 villages/town he list, it has Haifa with a dual M (=Military assault on settlement), A (=Abandonment on Arab orders). And then I find exactly 5 villages with A as cause: Ma'dhar (with 450 inhabitants in 1945), Hadatha (520), Awlam (720), Sirin, Baysan (810), and Bayt Nabala (2,310) (Total 1945 population= 4810). (Note that some of these villages this cause is disputed, see eg Bayt Nabala). Now, even if these 5 villages had an explosive population growth between 1945 and and 1948....it still doesn't add up to "tens of thousands". So where the heck does Karsh get "tens of thousands" from? Huldra (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Morris and Karsh are in two entirely different historical camps (Morris espousing a view that events were planned) - and Karsh is far from the only voice asserting widespread evacuation orders. Nor do military assaults preclude evacuations orders - as you might recall as we recently discussed in Lifta - while Morris marks the village with a M in his table - in the body of his text - page 120 - he describes repeated Arab evacuations (including on the orders of Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni) to Ramallah, and then an assault that blew up three houses, followed by Lifta's residents leaving again. One does not preclude the other - military assaults/skirmishing with evacuation orders in between. Whatever the "truth" is (and it would seem it is quite murky, regardless) - we should reflect the various points of view here.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I dont agree; if would look for someone from a "totally different camp" then we should go to a person like Rosemarie Esber, who often have much harsher view of the Israelis conduct. And who have actually studied the various villages. (Btw, Morris was strongly criticised for being too lenient in his 1987 book by Norman Finkelstein in one of his 1990s book (in typical Finkelstein fashion: in minute detail..), most of that criticism was acted upon in the 2004 book...I think (haven't checked), (hmm, one day I will add that info to all the villages mentioned.) Anyway, my main objection to Karsh's words is that he never, AFAIK, did any study of these villages (if Im wrong on this, then please show me where he has written about it)...he just throws out words, and reasons for becoming a refugee which even the Israel intelligence community knew was wrong (see [7]). In short, it is just some POV statement, without even an attempt to justify the numbers, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there are other camps - does not place Karsh and Morris in the same camp - far from it. Karsh is an established scholar in this particular subject (1947-9). As for studying the villages themselves - the particularities of the villages themselves were mainly irrelevant to military / propaganda / evacuation actions - which have been studied by other means. The Israeli intel community - BTW - was very nascent and disorganized in 1948 (a number of small and rather disconnected initiatives who did not talk to each other, and this was particularly so in June 1948 - the IDF only formed at the end of May 1948 and still absorbing units) - so saying what the "community" knew is a complete non-starter - which is why Morris is very specific (IDF Intelligence Branch document from June 1948) in the paper you are citing. Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wether or not the Israeli intel community as a whole knew about this or not....can be only speculations from our side, of course. But in any case, the Morris article about this was published in 1986. Anyone, everywhere could get this info since then. If any scholar in the area have avoided reading it for more than 30 years, they must be rather desperate in avoiding anything which can challenge their preconceived ideas. And what typo of "scholar" is that? Huldra (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to Karsh's fringe opinions being cited with attribution, but it is not acceptable for the "Objectors" section to be 2.4 times (by word count) the length of the "Supporters" section. Instead of thinking of things to add, you might like to choose what to prune before someone else does pruning that you don't like. For pruning there will be. Zero^talk 10:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If one simply followed Icewhiz's example in excising material in other sections, eg this or this or this or this the opponents section would soon be appropriately sized. Come to think of it, Ill do just that. nableezy - 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Credit where credit's due - I but merely followed Nableezy's lead.Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice how nobody has reverted you? nableezy - 17:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Schechtman

Some of the changes I made involve Joseph Schechtman. As always, a sound contrary argument will suffice for an undo or compromise. The important thing to know is that Schechtman was never a third-party source so it is problematic to cite him just as some random historian with an opinion, and much more problematic to cite him as a source of fact.

Schechtman was the former secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky who wrote on the refugees as an employee of both the Israeli government and various Jewish organisations. In late 1948, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok arranged a Jewish Agency grant for Schechtman to "study some of the recent European population movements, in preparation for a book that Schechtman said would deal with the various European population transfers of 1945-1946, as well as the application of the transfer idea to 'Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine.'"(Rafael Medoff, Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, p149). Publication of the book was financed by the Jewish Agency.(ibid) In 1949 he was "hired by Abba Silver and the AZEC ... to organize a propaganda campaign advocating the resettlement of Palestinian Arab refugees in the Arab countries. Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Eliahu Epstein, and his counterpart at the UN, Abba Eban, helped plan the campaign. Schechtman authored two detailed booklets ... which served as the American Zionist leadership's staple literature on the subjct for years to come." (ibid, p215). This work is where the famous quote farm (Monseigneur Hakim, etc) originates from. I have originals of these booklets. It "constituted the Israeli government's official position on the issue for many years afterward" (ibid, p178). The American Jewish Congress and the Israeli government also sponsored Schechtman's writing on European population transfers (ibid, p177). Regarding his use in the article:

• Perhaps it is ok to cite him as someone presenting an opinion, though I don't like to see him named just as "the historian" with his official status hidden.
• Quite a lot of the last section of the article is based on Schechtman's book. The fact that the book has the same political purpose as his earlier writing is immediately obvious on reading it, so personally I think it should be completely replaced by a more reliable source. As an interim measure, I compared what he wrote against his sources for everything he was cited for. Mostly he reported correctly but there were a few problems:

1. Regarding Res 393: "Its supporters included every Arab nation." Schechtman gives no source, and the UN voting records database says that the vote was not recorded. The official record of the session doesn't give a breakdown of the vote either, which is unusual. Since the meaning of the Arab vote is anyway unclear without knowing what their reasons were, I took it out.
2. "Jordan, Syria, and Egypt all agreed to absorb a share of the refugee population, although these pledges never came to fruition." Schechtman never states this directly, though it is easy to get that impression from the way he presents the story. In fact his sources do not show either Syria or Egypt agreeing to more than projects for temporary self-sufficiency. Here is what Schechtman quoted for Syria from his source (UNRWA annual report for 1952–1953): "The Syrian Government undertook to provide the necessary legislation and regulations to contribute public land where available and to assure to refugees the maximum benefit from the expenditure of UNRWA funds." But the next sentence is omitted: "The facilities provided by UNRWA on State land would become the property of the Syrian Government when no longer required by the refugees." This sort of propaganda by omission is why we shouldn't use sources like Schechtman.
3. "The General Assembly continually reiterated its request that Arab governments absorb Palestinian refugees, but..." — these are not Schechtman's words but some editor's SYNTH.
4. "host governments' 'political objections to large-scale projects.' It is a correct report from Schechtman, but Schechtman's source (UNRWA annual report for 1954–1955) states this regarding the refugees themselves. I just replaced this by a short direct quote. I didn't (but reasonably could) quote the report's assessment of the main problem: "The outstanding factor which continues to condition refugee attitudes and to influence the policies of Near East Governments in this matter is the strong desire of the refugees to return to their homeland." (para. 35).

Zero^talk 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Schechtman was cited in the Objectors' viewpoints - and attributed. As an objector's viewpoint - he is certainly notable. Not that excluding sources for alleged "propaganda by omission" (even in attributed stmts) - would have us removing quite a bit of content in other sections of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Pay attention please. All of the above except the first dot-point ("Perhaps it is...") concerns the content of the "Historic attempts at resolution" section, where he is cited as a source for fact. Zero^talk 10:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Weight

I plan on excising a number of quotes from the objector's section. Currently that section contains a number of individual views and extended quotes whereas the supporters section does not, excepting a single extended quote. I plan to rectify that issue. Given edits such as this I would expect those edits to be accepted by all. nableezy - 18:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What you propose sounds like a fair implementation of the relevant policies and guidelines. At the same time I urge you to be careful not to remove too much, and to keep the wording neutral. If I could make a suggestion, perhaps it would be best if you just pointed out the problematic part, and leave the work up to editors with a less pronounced anti-Israeli POV. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I literally just noticed the personal attack there. Kindly stop. nableezy - 06:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is a mess - and could use editing. If you are nuking various cruft (OR, random op-eds by non-notable people in the field (politics or law/historical research) - all power to you - but if these are notable positions - try to retain at least summaries. Also note that citations are a mess throughout the article - some citations are misplaced (those I looked at - were OK when inserted, but subsequent editing caused "citations to wander" - e.g. editors cutting out a blurb, but retaining the citation (which then appears a mis-citation to the segment preceeding it). In other cases - you've got a citation at the beginning of a block of text, and then a long wall of text wtih no citations (which is a summary of the source specified in the beginning).Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ive made a number of changes to the section. Several of the blockquotes were removed and replaced with summaries and smaller length quotes. As far as what I removed, here it is and why:

Yaffa Zilbershats agrees and further argues against those who say that on May 15, 1948 Arabs living in Israel (who would later flee as refugees) must be considered Israeli citizens. She notes that most international treaties do not obligate a state to give citizenship to its inhabitants, and that the state (Israel) can decide to whom citizenship shall be given. She notes that while Article 15 of the UDHR does say "Everyone has the right to a nationality", that right is "ambiguous" and "weakly drafted".)Citation) Yaffa Zilbershats (2007) p. 201-6

Not relevant here, this isnt about whether or not the Palestinians should be Israeli citizens or not.

No right of return or compensation is available for the estimated 13 million people who moved between the newly created states during the partition of India in 1947. Similarly, the millions of Sudeten Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II were never compensated.

covered again below with the same cite

In the Middle East, none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence. It is argued a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them. cited to: "ISRAEL and the Palestine right of return". stanford.edu.

unreliable source, covered better below

That the descendants of refugees do not automatically inherit refugee status.

already listed above with this cite

Regarding an argument that Israel's admission to the UN was conditional upon acceptance of relevant UN Resolutions, including Resolution 194, Lapidoth has written that "a careful scrutiny of the text of Israel's application for membership and the discussions that took place in the Ad Hoc Political Committee and in the plenary session of the General Assembly show that no such commitment was made; nor did the General Assembly's Resolution on the admission of Israel impose upon her an obligation to implement that Resolution". cited to: Lapidoth, Ruth: "The Right of Return in International Law, with Special Reference to Palestinian Refugees", Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 16, 1986

Already have lapdioth above saying 194 is not binding. nableezy - 06:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Arab leaders' endorsement of flight

It's been established that this is a lie (Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#"Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation).

Per WP:Fringe, articles may include fringe claims only if they are followed by a documentation of its current level of acceptance among the academic community. The article should then refer reader to more accepted ideas. This is certainly not the case here.

Shrike, just because Karsh is a scholar, it doesn't mean that his views are automatically worthy. Karsh is regarded as a joke of a scholar (just read reviews of his books by academic scholars). He wrote a book arguing that the impact of the great powers on shaping the Middle East has for years been overstated, and uses expressions like "Islamic imperialism". He exhibits amazing lack of self-awareness when he wants his readers to regard him as serious historian, while at the same time actively preaching against the the right of returns for the Palestinian refugees in his books.

Here is a sample of reviews of his books:

Empires of the Sand

• "...essentially a work of propaganda, but still of use to students who wished to see how scholars could misrepresent sources."

Islamic Imperialism

• "the argument is controversial, and many readers will find it unconvincing."
• "At best, there is a tendency here to fall back on broad and unsupportable generalizations about Islam and Muslims that recent historians have rightly shunned."

Rethinking the Middle East

• Karsh argues that "Middle Eastern studies have increasingly fallen under the sway of the Arabists or scholars of Arab descent".
• "It seems, in many cases, that whatever does not match the author’s views is charged with fraud and deception."

Palestine and the Palestinians

• "Karsh and the Israeli rightists whom he represents are incapable of accepting the idea of Palestinian national aspirations".

Palestine Betrayed

• Benny Morris: "Karsh's portrayal of Britain's role is one-sided and without nuance".

An effort will be made in the future to clean up the articles from this Karsh trash. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Dismissing Karsh, and other historians not of the "new historians" camp - published, tenured academics in the field as "fringe" is a BLP violation. Calling BLPs "a joke of.." is a BLP violation - all the more when this is an academic with an h-jndex of 23, widely cited on numerous works. Wikipedia articles (largely relying on a single author from the "new historian" school) are not valid sources.Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

BLP violation? Now that is a new excuse. None of what you say makes any sense. The sample of reviews above are from multiple authors from different backgrounds (most of them are not even Israeli). The reviews are not from a "single author from the 'new historian' school" as you falsely claim. The fringe content that was reinstated into the article is not only rejected by (Israeli) new historians, but mainstream scholars as well. Yes there are Israeli rightist historians with published works that say other things, but their views are clearly fringe. A group of scholars with published works can still come up with fringe ideas. Restoring tag since this is an ongoing discussion. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Some poor reviews, some good reviews. In charged topics rarely do works have universal acceptance. What is clear is that many of the works you mentioned were cited numerous times - e.g. ine of the books you mentioned was cited 250 times by others.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Number of citations is not a measure of the validity of his views. In any case, Karsh's view here on the "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" is rejected by mainstream academic scholars. This point is yet to be addressed by you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Rejected by Morris, you want so say? And not quite refuted, but rather little evidence per Morris his specific archives. Karsh is a widely cited, well published, tenured academic in the field - withing the bounds of mainstream. And all this, lest we forget, un a sub-section titled Objectors' viewpoints.Icewhiz (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi The question is who wrote those negative reviews? Were those scholars or not? What were their POVs? E.g. if all negative reviews were written by pro-Arab scholars, they would have less weight than if they were written by scholar all over the spectrum. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: Reviews by academic scholars published in peer-reviewed journals. I will be adding those to his article soon, along with their citations. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh. Or you could try to find which Arab leaders' endorsed flight (like Erskine Barton Childers tried to do in the early 1960s, and many, many after him). Equally unsuccessful.....Only Karsh still believes it (officially), and he is not naming names.
• Seriously, this is too silly. Debresser, Icewhiz: none of you are stupid, so please dont pretend to be stupid here, you are fooling no one, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you'd expect me to fall for a bunch of unsourced claimed reviews, I would be a fool, now wouldn't I.

Since I am not a scholar of history myself, I don't think I'll be looking for anything of the sort any time soon, but I'll be relying on Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#"Arab_leaders'_endorsement_of_flight"_explanation, which is clear that there exists such an opinion and that it is legitimate, even though not without criticism (which is to be expected). Debresser (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You not stupid too Huldra by supporting censorship of POV you WP:DONTLIKE you are harming Wiki -- Shrike (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a long standing viewpoint and position in the political discourse around the issue as well as historical research. We strive for WP:V, WP:NOTTRUTH - and getting to the "truth" of what occurred in 1948 is.... intractable. My own (completely irrelevant) personal opinion is that the "truth" is "all of the above" (or rather more precisely - a little bit of everything) - and that each camp/side (on the more overt cases of partisanship) cherry picks examples that suits their narrative - and as there were multiple phases to the conflict, multiple fronts with different combatants (very pronounced on the Arab side (multiple state actors, some non-state actors, and local actors - in different zones) - but also on the Israeli side (Hagana/Etzel/Lehi/IDF - as well as quite a bit of local variance)) - usually one can find a verifiable set of highly selective examples for just about any thesis in 47-49 (and if one adds propaganda (or periodic statements or later stories) - the bounds are even wider) ... Regardless we should reflect viewpoints on this matter - and we certainly should not censor Objectors' viewpoints when they are well attributed and made by significant figures in the field. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC) Added missing not.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: I have no objection to fringe opinions being cited here under the "Objectors' viewpoints" section (including those of Abu Karsh). However, it is necessary that the section also document the rejection of such views by mainstream academic scholars. I made this clear in my edit summary, and again on the talk page, so no need to cry about censorship. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

As long as you call that a "fringe" point of view, I for one will not be able to come to terms with whatever proposal you may make. This is an accepted and legitimate point of view, and I take objection to you calling it fringe. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I propose that we agree to a equal word limit for each of the "Supporters' viewpoints" and "Objectors' viewpoints" section, for example 500 words. Then, with due attention to attribution of opinions and fair reporting of sources, we allow editors of those persuasions to choose what to insert in their section up to that limit. I'm hoping that having to select carefully will improve the average quality, as it is very low at the moment. Zero^talk 13:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with a word limit. And I object to the notion that different points of view must receive the same amount of words. All depends on how much information is available about them, and how many words it takes to explain a certain point of view. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Tell me Debresser, would you ever agree with "supporters view" getting more space than "Objectors' viewpoints"? I doubt it. Why are you afraid of a level playing field?

Me, I agree to a word limit. At presently there is far more on "Objectors' viewpoints" than on supporters view (I have given the article an Unbalanced tag because of it.) We will all find the arguments which we agree with as more significant and important than the ones which we do nor agree with; without a level playing field this article will remain biased, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra As you may have noticed, my objection is based on the general notion of "coverage" in RS, so obviously I would agree to anything that reflects that. Why would you even ask? Debresser (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you don't have a good idea of the coverage that exists. In fact there are a very large number of highly qualified people who have written on each side of this argument. It would be easy to massively expand both sections, but for the sake of the encyclopaedia we should not do that. Instead we should correct the major existing imbalance. Zero^talk 04:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no imbalance, as I have already shown before. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are you removing a frickin tag? nableezy - 15:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it is not justified. The numbers say so. And I don't think you'll get consensus for it here. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sherlock, a tag is to draw attention and outside perspective. Removing it is both petty and tendentious. nableezy - 02:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Discussions are for outside perspective. Tags are for drawing attention. But if there is nothing to draw attention to, there is no reason to have a tag, now is there? Debresser (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy Please strike your personal attack per WP:NPA. You might be taken to WP:ARBPIA soon enough with the way you are badmouthing here and making free use of ad hominem remarks. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh?? "Discussions are for outside perspective" ...could you please point me to where that is stated as policy? I agree that tags are or drawing attention...but you cannot unilaterally decide that "there is nothing to draw attention to". Huldra (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my comment. I placed it where I meant it to be placed, thank you very much. Feel free to take whatever you would like wherever you would like. nableezy - 05:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra My point was that a tag is not primarily for drawing discussion. That is was talkpages are for. Nomen est omen.

@Huldra I can and I did. Not just did I decide, I even provided proof. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy De facto this is a separate discussion, so I am within my rights to make a separate section of this. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You have been told before that your way of "pinging" doesnt work; and it is deceptive, as it looks as if we have been pinged, when we have not. Please stop.

When you write "My point was that a tag is not primarily for drawing discussion."...you are implying that I have said something different. Which I haven't. So can you please start to argue against what I actually said, instead? I wanted to draw outside attention (and possibly, indirectly, more outside views to the discussion) to the article, and then a tag is the right thing, correct?

And heh; your "proof" did not convince anyone but yourself. But I guess you knew that. Huldra (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra I may use whatever way of drawing your attention I like on talkpage, including adding the "@" in front of your name. I will not stop doing so, and your request to do so, based on no policy or guideline is out of line.

If my proof didn't convince you (because you can only speak for yourself, unless you will a last confirm my suspicions that you and some other editors coordinate your actions), then that shows your weaknesses only, certainly not the weakness of my argument. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not entitled to change my comment in any way shape or form. I intended it to be in that section. Stop vandalizing my comment, full stop. nableezy - 20:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Stanford cite

Am I getting this right? Debresser, you are repeatedly restoring this webpage as a reliable source? Care to explain in what world a random person named Ronald Hilton is having an argument with another random person named Peter Green is a reliable source? nableezy - 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and hello, its a frickin honest reporting email verbatim without any claim that it is accurate. nableezy - 07:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

One can visit Ronald Hilton to see what expertise in Middle East matters is listed there (hint: none). Besides that, anyone who cites Honest Reporting for facts really doesn't have a clue. Zero^talk 10:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Without admitting anything of the kind, I agree with your edits, which explained in detail two sections above. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

US policy in 2007

Can somebody explain why that matters? A concurrent resolution that has no actual impact on anything and a statement by a president with some spin by an ambassador? Id like to remove the section entirely. Objections? nableezy - 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Because they limit the possibilities for solutions to the problem of those who claim the right of return (Palestinian refugees) that will be able to receive US endorsement. I say that is pretty direcly related and quite important too, as any solution that would not enjoy US support is less likely to be successful. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, can you not revert tags added for no reason other than you disagree with them? The resolution has literally no effect on anything, it isnt a law and Congress cant legislate that anyway. And W's statement doesnt actually say anything about this. Its just what Oren says, and why does that merit being placed in an encyclopedia? Anyway, as you removed the tag but didnt remove the reason, Ill be removing the section. nableezy - 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think the 2007 content should be trimmed, and the US position on the matter (which began prior to 2007, and has evolved past 2007 - e.g. Trump defunding UNRWA, rejecting the "right of return" yet again, and promoting settlement in Arab countries - [8][9][10] per the Guardian - "Cutting UNRWA funding has been widely interpreted in both Israel and Palestine as a blunt move by the US to unilaterally sweep aside one of the main sticking points in peace negotiations – the right of return of Palestinians"[11]. As with other sections - we're dealing here with WikiArchaeology in terms of editing. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy I may not remove a tag, but you may remove thousands of characters? I don't think so! I think you removed too much, and the remaining paragraph does not explain the context of the statement of Bush. I propose you restore that and other relevant parts, or simple be reverted. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You should not remove a tag. If you actually read the tag you see that it says Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. You did no such thing. As far as restoring the other material, no. nableezy - 15:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Tags may be removed, if they are not justified. See WP:WTRMT#3. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)