Talk:Palestinian right of return

message: ""The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, Imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and Threw them into Prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The ARAB States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did Not Recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is Regrettable".
- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, March 1976
(Mahmoud Abbas current PA leader of the WB)--
-
`
"The Arab streets are Curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."
- London Times, May 5, 1948
"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as Renegades."
- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948"
-
"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949"
-
"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."
- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25"
-
The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine.....
- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31"
-
I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem,
Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948"
]. ""I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem,
Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948"
-
The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
-Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949 (recently cited by Dereez)"
-
We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952
""The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- Jordan daily Ad Difaa, Sept 6, 1954"
-
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948"
"The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities Guaranteed their Safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949""
-
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."
- Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee,- UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14"
-
"the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound Regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"
- The Arab National Committee of Haifa/Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, Schechtman, 1963""
-
"""Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave...
We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave...
We have rendered them dispossessed...
We have accustomed them to begging...
We have participated in lowering their moral and social level...
Then We exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of Political purposes..."
- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war""
.
`
`
`
.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4300:A190:A42E:BED4:849E:84D3 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Main opposition to the right of return 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Original research - note to IP editor from 86.108.nnn.nnn range 

message: 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)." PRtalk 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statement, compensation individual, not national. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No article on [[Al-Awda]] group?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Right of Return" Plan to Replace Israel with Islamic Caliphate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  supporters, opponents, and criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: how about just adding "these include" and leaving out the rest? Note that "some" is usually considered to be a weasal word. Tiamuttalk 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifically 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison to similar situations? 

message: 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.http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=6946§ionid=351020202http://www.imemc.org/article/20936
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)
thread_title:  Source check failed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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).Before Their Diaspora, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984Village Statistics of 1945: A Classification of Land and Area ownership in Palestine  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.Abu Sitta, Salman (2001): From Refugees to Citizens at Home. London: Palestine Land Society and Palestinian Return Centre, 2001.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the Right of Return include the right to have property returned, and how much property is involved?

message: I doubt it, and will look for sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the right only include those expelled during wars?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gaza Strip was never part of Egypt 

message: 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 TranslationQuran.com
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)
thread_title:  Objector's View Points - The Women 46  

message: Goal: implanting a discourse in Israeli society about the return.
"promote Israeli Jewish society's acknowledgement of and accountability for the ongoing injustices of the Nakba and the reconceptualization of Return as the imperative redress of the Nakba and a chance for a better life for all the country's inhabitants, so that it renounces the colonial conception of its existence in the region and the colonial practices it entails.
Zochrot will act to challenge the Israeli Jewish public's preconceptions and promote awareness, political and cultural change within it to create the conditions for the Return of Palestinian Refugees and a shared life in this country. To do so, Zochrot will generate processes in which Israeli Jews will reflect on and review their identity, history, future and the resulting discourse through which they conceive of their lives in this country. Our focus on the Jewish target audience derives from its practical and moral responsibility for Palestinian refugeehood, as well as from its privileged power position under the present regime." 
[]
They started truth commission, healing centers and conferences about very concrete legal themes on the return. 
The Idea is somehow, building a new state together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.114.146.109 (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zochrot - Israeli NGO  

message: Please replace the template call

just below the "Background" heading with

so that the relevant list in the template is shown.
Thank you,
213.246.85.251 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks! LittleMountain5 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Scope of the issue" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits to "scope of the issue" section. 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: , 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)
replies: text:  Your point? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the text. Now you'll get the point. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: We have an agreement. Restored in the agreed place. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Position of Israeli govt. in the lead

message: "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)
thread_title:  Sources please 

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

text:  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). Zerotalk 09:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Shrike was not the original author of the text he restored, so the rule did not forbid his edit. Zerotalk 01:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, true.  It was the user Reneem. ImTheIP (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrike's edit 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.Radley, pp. 557–599
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)
thread_title:  International character 

message: 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:
:# 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.
:# "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.
:# "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.
:# "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).
Zerotalk 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. Zerotalk 10:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Schechtman

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Weight 

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

text: 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. Zerotalk 10:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Stanford cite 

message: The quote from Bush is a primary source, and it says absolutely nothing about a Palestinian right of return. The only thing that is there is an op-ed by the Israeli ambassador suggesting that Bush meant what he did not say, which is a fine source for Michael Oren believing that, however he is not a reliable secondary source for what Bush actually meant. Without secondary sources showing that Oren's belief is given any weight it should be again removed. Debresser, do you have any such sources? nableezy - 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reminding you that Michael Oren was not the Israeli ambassador to the US at that time. His credentials relevant to him being a reliable source are that he is a "historian, author, politician". The specific article used as a source was published in The Wall Street Journal, with the note that "Mr. Oren is a fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present" (Norton, 2007)." Let's not misrepresent who our sources are, please. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an article, it is an op-ed, meaning an opinion published as his opinion. You are right on one bit though, he became Israeli ambassador a year later. Regardless, it is an individual opinion saying Bush meant what he did not say. It does not merit even a brief mention here. nableezy - 16:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you on that. Just to make myself clear, I disagree with this removal, but I agree that the paragraph you replaced it with, was rightfully removed. You may remember that I was against this paragraph from the beginning, and have repeatedly reversed your replacement of the previous version with it. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have literally no idea what you are trying to say here. Regardless, Oren's view that Bush meant to say something stronger than he actually said is not something that should be included at all. nableezy - 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am trying to say that I agree with Zero's removal of your paragraph, while at the same time I disagree with your removal of a large text and replacing it with that aforementioned paragraph. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh Zero did not remove "my paragraph", he removed what you restored entirely. nableezy - 16:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  He removed "your" paragraph. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, sure thing. I had previously removed that section, you restored it, repeatedly. Though I suppose I should just allow you to continue thinking that its my paragraph that was removed so that you dont again revert to restore it. I swear Debresser, its like you trying to prove my points for me. nableezy - 16:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush and Oren 

message: The quote either needs to be closed, or the quotation mark should be removed.
Under Abentees' Property:
A group consisting of "local authorities, the kibbutz movements, the settlement departments of the National institutions, Haganah commanders and influential figures such as Yosef Weitz and Ezra Danin started lobbying against repatriation. 71.171.85.15 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote left open 

message: Two citations in this article link to the front page of the Jerusalem Post, without any other details.
Reference 10: 
Reference 89: 
Reference 10 may have once referred to a specific article, but the archive link just shows the front page of the Post on the given date, and none of the headlines appear to directly address the claim. 
Reference 89 just links to the "Satellite" section of the front page, without even a date. I've searched for an article with the quote, but didn't find anything.
I'm marking both these references as failed verification, and am also posting here so that others can get more context and help with next steps toward resolving these citation issues. Quetzalquill (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification: Jerusalem Post homepage