Talk:Palestinian refugees/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

citation found

There is a citation needed on this page under the subheading Iraq. we found an article to support this text: http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/89571/middle-east-palestinian-refugee-numberswhereabouts RhondaRosen (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

descendant of refugees

It is a standard Israeli claim that UNRWA refugee status automatically passes to descendants while UNCHR refugee status never passes to descendants. Actually both claims are false in general, though it remains true that the two sets of rules are different. For UNCHR it is useless to rely on an executive summary; the only proper source is the Procedural Handbook, see "derivative refugee status". Zero^talk 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Glaring error

""During the 1948 Palestine War, 711,000 out of around 900,000 Palestine Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel.[1] The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict.[19]"""

- 

There were only about 400,000 Palestinians in the territory that would become Israel in 1947. Most of the refugees, about two-thirds, were "Internally displaced" from one part of 'Palestine' to what would become another. NOT from the territories that became Israel. - -

UNSCOP's population estimates for the land that was allocated to the Jewish state was: (1947) Jewish: 498,000 (55%) Non-Jewish: 407,000 (45%)

- - -

Mitchel Bard, Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFpartition.html "...The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state’s frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles (about 55% of Palestine), and the Population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs...."

- - -

Benny Morris: http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/02/israel-and-palestinians-according-to.html - _

"....The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee)..."

- -   

So there were Never even "900,000" in the "territory that became Israel", but app 400,000.

2/3 of the 600k-900k overall total went from one part of 'palestine' to another. (ie, WB to Gaza) Probably only 250,000 of the refugees were "from the territory that would become Israel". And widely agreed app 130k-160k remained in Israel. The kernel of the current 1.3 million.

- 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.149.66 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, are you proposing an edit to the article? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

-- - Yes, absolutely, I am proposing an edit. I would gladly let some writing pro do it, but would give it a shot if you like as it would be a short, maybe medium size, paragraph and/or addition to/modification-of the current one. I would post it here for approval. Thank you -

PS: footnote [1] from which the error apparently comes, is a 'book' worth of text. I suspect an error in that report (rather than the wiki writer) being the use of "Israel" instead of the WHOLE territory that was to become BOTH Israel and Palestine. That's the only way that the refugee Total could be confused with the lesser PART that was from "the territory to become Israel" -

again marc, unmarc@gmail.com

I don't think that anyone edits professionally, so you're as welcome to suggest a wording as is anyone else ; ) --Dailycare (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.149.66 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 

The Mitchell Bard source cited gives a figure of 1.2 million Arabs vs. 600,000 Jews at the time of the 1947 partition, page 32. I'm unclear on what the the 538K v 398K number is based. Huskerdru (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Huskerdru: There are three regions involved in these numbers, very different in dimension and population. In order of increasing size: (1) the region designated by the UN for a Jewish State, (2) the region inside the armistice lines after the 1948 war, (3) the whole of Mandatory Palestine. In order to interpret population figures, the first task is to figure out which region they refer to. Zero^talk 01:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, that makes sense, thank you for the clarification! Huskerdru (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Why can't the PA absorb the Palestinian refugees, really?

"... the self-declared State of Palestine remains unable to absorb the Palestinian refugees, due to lack of de facto sovereignty over its claimed territories." There is no source quoted, and I can see only little logical merit to this claim. What stops the PA/State of Pal. to give them the (same) citizen status as to the other Palestinians, let's say from Area C? Those are not under PA sovereign administration either. Or do they actually have Palestinian citizenship, but the PA is not in the position (economically, in terms of infrastructure) to offer them the same range of services it provides to non-refugee citizens? Can't it be done with external (EU, US, UN...) help? It's an important distinction. If so, why? Is the cause, as claimed w/o source, the lack of sovereignty, or the lack of means, or maybe the lack of political will? Probably a mix, but that's exactly the point: discuss it, don't just drop in unsourced statements! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

Change: The term "Palestine refugees" originally referred to both Arabs and Jews whose normal place of residence had been in Mandatory Palestine but were displaced and lost their livelihoods as a result of the 1948 Palestine war.

to: The term "Palestine refugees" originally referred to persons whose normal place of residence had been in that part of Mandatory Palestine which came under Israeli control but were displaced and lost their livelihoods as a result of the 1948 Palestine war.

While there were some Jewish refugees from areas which came under control of Arab governments, they were a tiny minority. Current wording gives a falsely implies equivalency and "Palestinian refugees" never referred to them as such in the UN discussions. See, e.g., https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-211401/

According to the article East Jerusalem, there were at least 1,300 Jewish "Palestine refugees." By 1951 all Jewish Palestine refugees would of course have been resettled.ImTheIP (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Change: Being the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited, including unregistered,

To: Including unregistered,

See https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions/, answering the question "Is the Transfer of Refugee Status to Descendants Unique to UNRWA?" - Somalian and Afghanistan conflicts have also resulted in situations in which refugee status is inherited. The assertion that Palestinians are the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited is unverified.

I think what the text is trying to communicate is that most of today's Palestinian refugees were not born in their country of origin. But the formulation of the text is ambiguous so I agree with cutting it as you propose. ImTheIP (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The whole section titled "Origin of the Palestinian Refugees" is not presented in a neutral manner, with the Zionist case (that Palestinians voluntarily departed) prominent and the case that Palestinians were forced out obfuscated by tacking it onto the end of a paragraph making the Zionist case. The case regarding Palestinians being forced out deserves at least its own paragraph. Besides, the quote from Steven Glazer makes it appear that he agrees with the Zionist position that he notes. He does not.

Change: Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders or was an unintended consequence of the war.[32].

To: Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders or was an unintended consequence of the war.[32]. Some Zionist writings indicate that Zionists had planned, or at least intended the expulsion prior to the war, for example Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

   "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." ([Benny Morris,] Righteous Victims, p. 144)" (quoted from www.palestineremembered.com)

Change: In a study of bias in Palestinian and Zionist sources dealing with the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Steven Glazer lists a number of early Zionist historians and writers, notably Joseph Schechtman, Leo Kohn, Jon Kimche and Maria Syrkin, who considered that:

   "...the Arabs in Palestine were asked to stay and live as citizens in the Jewish state. Instead, they chose to leave, either because they were unwilling to live with the Jews, or because they expected an Arab military victory which would annihilate the Zionists. They thought they could leave temporarily and return at their leisure. Later, an additional claim was put forth, namely that the Palestinians were ordered to leave, with radio broadcasts instructing them to quit their homes".[33] 

The implication of this position is that the Palestinians chose to leave, and thus forfeited their rights to their land, and must accept their own responsibilities for the plight they find themselves in.[33]. According to Benny Morris, between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestine Arabs fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states won the war and took control of the country.[34]

To: In a study of bias in Palestinian and Zionist sources dealing with the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Steven Glazer lists a number of early Zionist historians and writers, notably Joseph Schechtman, Leo Kohn, Jon Kimche and Maria Syrkin, who considered that:

   "...the Arabs in Palestine were asked to stay and live as citizens in the Jewish state. Instead, they chose to leave, either because they were unwilling to live with the Jews, or because they expected an Arab military victory which would annihilate the Zionists. They thought they could leave temporarily and return at their leisure. Later, an additional claim was put forth, namely that the Palestinians were ordered to leave [by Arab leadership], with radio broadcasts instructing them to quit their homes".[33] 

Steven Glazer adds:

    "Zionist historians have been hard pressed to come up with much concrete, factual evidence to bear out their position. As stated, much of the Zionist case has rested on the theory that the Palestinians were ordered to leave by their leaders, a claim which has been difficult for them to substantiate, as evidence is lacking"

The implication of this (the Zionist) position is that the Palestinians chose to leave, and thus forfeited their rights to their land, and must accept their own responsibilities for the plight they find themselves in.[33]. According to Benny Morris, between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestine Arabs fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states won the war and took control of the country.[34]

<new paragraph>

Indeed. Glazer brings up the "Zionist position" only so that he can thoroughly demolish it. There is no reason to include Glazers quotes at all since the "early Zionist position" is debunked by more recent scholarship. ImTheIP (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Change:

When the Haganah and then the emerging Israeli army (Israel Defense Forces or IDF) went on the defensive, between April and July, a further 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left or were expelled, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, which lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.[35] Expulsions took place in many towns and villages, particularly along the Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road[36] and in Eastern Galilee.[37] About 50,000–70,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by the IDF during Operation Danny,[38] and most others during operations of the IDF in its rear areas.[39] During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee were allowed to remain in their homes.[40] Today they form the core of the Arab Israeli population. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to remove Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to remove the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee during which at least nine events named massacres of Arabs were carried out by IDF soldiers.[41] These events generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinian Arabs. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled.[42] After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF resettled around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs from the borderlands of the new Israeli state.[43]

To: Whatever the reason for the exodus during the first months of the conflict, during the later parts it was clear there was a concerted effort by Zionist forces to terrorize the Palestinian population into leaving, using massacres as well as threats of massacres [33]. When the Haganah and then the emerging Israeli army (Israel Defense Forces or IDF) went on the offensive, between April and July, a further 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left or were expelled, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, which lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.[35] Expulsions took place in many towns and villages, particularly along the Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road[36] and in Eastern Galilee.[37] About 50,000–70,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by the IDF during Operation Danny,[38] and most others during operations of the IDF in its rear areas.[39] During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee were allowed to remain in their homes.[40] Today they form the core of the Arab Israeli population. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to remove Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to remove the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee during which at least nine events named massacres of Arabs were carried out by IDF soldiers.[41] These events generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinian Arabs. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled.[42] LynEve (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this change is worthwhile. It adds "Whatever the reason for the exodus during the first months of the conflict, during the later parts it was clear there was a concerted effort by Zionist forces to terrorize the Palestinian population into leaving, using massacres as well as threats of massacres [33]." which I don't think is npov. ImTheIP (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Patrinlineal" is the wrong term and doesn't mean the same as "descendants of male refugees"

The article uses the term "patrilineal". The source however uses the words "descendants of male refugees". They don't descibe the same group of people:

- Partilineal descendants would mean descendants of male refugees, their sons, and of their sons, and of their sons, etc. It would not include descendants of a daughter of a male refugee.

- On the other hand, the words "descendants of a male refugee" means all children and childrens' children etc. of a male refugee, including his daughters' children and their childrens' children.

--PeterTrompeter (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I changed it and the ref in the article body, if you are happy with that, I will change it in the lead as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Verification fail

@Izzy Borden:

• Statement in article: The term [Palestinian refugees] originally referred to both Arabs and Jews whose normal place of residence had been in Mandatory Palestine but were displaced and lost their livelihoods as a result of the 1948 Palestine war.
• Quoation in citation: The term 'refugees' applies to all persons, Arabs, Jews and others who have been displaced from their homes in Palestine. This would include Arabs in Israel who have been shifted from their normal places of residence. It would also include Jews who had their homes in Arab Palestine, such as the inhabitants of the Jewish quarter of the Old City. It would not include Arabs who lost their lands but not their houses, such as the inhabitants of Tulkarm

The citation does not support:

• Any description of the specific term “Palestinian refugees”
• Any comment on how the term was “originally” used

Yes there were a small number of Jewish refugees, but they are not in scope for this article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote refers to an analysis of UN resolution 194, and top the term "Palestinian refugee" that appears there. It is explicit that it refers to both Jewish and Arab refugees. What is it exactly that you think fails verification? That the text doesn't use the word 'originally"? The paragraph before the quote says this is "the earliest record" of such a discussion,. In that case we can reword to something like "When the term was first used in UN 194, it referred to both.... " Izzy Borden (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"Palestinian refugee" does not appear in Res 194. The name most commonly used in the early days, namely "Palestine refugee", appears there only in the name of the UNRWA-precursor United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees. The reason "Palestine refugee" was used rather than "Palestinian refugee" despite its grammatical awkwardness must be documented somewhere; I'll guess it was because "Palestinian" at the time was a nationality. "Palestine refugees" included Jews permanently displaced within Palestine, but this usage soon dropped off when Israel took over their care. Zero^talk 04:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. The paragraph of this article we are talking about starts with "In 1949, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) defined Palestinian refugees to refer to the original "Palestine refugees". You agree that "Palestine refugees" included Jews permanently displaced within Palestine, which is what was removed, despite being sourced to a scholarly book that says that. What is it that fails verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The sentence reads very poorly and is mostly unsourced. Neither source says that UNRWA defined "Palestinian refugees". They used, and still use, the name "Palestine refugees". The difference is that "Palestinian refugees" implies Palestinians, while "Palestine refugees" is a legal concept that only persists in UN resolutions and official documents. These are related but not identical concepts and it is wrong to equate them. The part of the sentence you omitted, "as well as their patrilineal descendants" is correct with respect to UNRWA's definition but the sources do not say that UNRWA established that rule in the few weeks of 1949 remaining after its establishment. I think it is right and proper to mention that "Palestine refugee" initially included some Jews, but they aren't the topic of the article. They belong at UNRWA. Zero^talk 12:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry , it is still not clear to me what failed verification. The article currently says the UNRWA defined "Palestinian refugee" to mean the same as the original "Palestine refugees". Perhaps that's wrong, but then this is the sentence that fails verification, not the one that was removed. I omitted that part about descendants only for brevity, tt has nothing to do with the point I am making. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The removed sentence started "The term originally referred to both Arabs and Jews..." and the only possible meaning of "the term" in context is "Palestinian refugees", not "Palestine refugees" (which hasn't been mentioned at all). The source given does not mention the term "Palestinian refugees", so the claim is unsourced. It is the same issue as remains with the following sentence. The source is relevant but paragraph needs rewriting to cite the source correctly. Zero^talk 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

the sentence before the sentence that was removed says 'Palestinian refugee' was used to mean the same as Palestine refugee. The source that was removed says Palestine refugee referred to Jews, as well. What fails verification? Izzy Borden (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean the sentence after. I have addressed it already. Zero^talk 12:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

yes, sorry, the sentence after. So if we reverse the order of the sentences, to first say that 'Palestinian refugee' was used to mean the same as Palestine refugee, and then provide (the sourced statement) that Palestine refugee referred to Jews, as well, what fails verification? Izzy Borden (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead

@Onceinawhile

Your edit summary said restructure in order of size of community, but what you did is much more than that, as we both know. You completely removed the Arab League paragraph, which explains why Palestinian-descended people are kept in legal limbo after all these generations. Why do you not find that relevant? Synotia (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't start a discussion about reverted material and before even receiving a reply, edit disputed content back in. Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Synotia: the Arab League paragraph you added to the lede is from an article about Saudi Arabia. The paragraph was drafted in a misleading manner, to imply that the Arab League is at fault for the state of all Palestinian refugees. There are three things wrong with this:

• The primary reason for the legal limbo is Israel’s removal of their citizenship rights in 1952 and the failure of Israel to honor its legal responsibility for refugees known as the Palestinian right of return
• Of the 5.5m refugees, 4.0m live in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, which the Arab League paragraph does not apply to.
• The Arab League position, according to the article on Saudi, appears to relate only to citizenship. That does not explain the dire status of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, which is due to much harsher restrictions. As an aside, we should try to find the original Arab League pronouncement and add it to the article.

In summary, you state that your Arab League paragraph "explains why Palestinian-descended people are kept in legal limbo after all these generations", whereas the truth is that the position of the Arab League "is the secondary reason why approximately [10%] of Palestinian-refugees have remained stateless after all these generations". I don’t see that as lede-worthy, but I don’t object to it being in the lede so long as it is given due weight and written with very careful contextualization. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Of the 5.5m refugees, 4.0m live in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, which the Arab League paragraph does not apply to.

Of course, hence why I contrasted the case of Jordan in the edit you turned into a mishmash ;) I propose also adding the case of the West Bank next to Jordan.

However, these are exceptions among Arab countries, with the reason being the Arab League guideline. This does not deny that these people have been exiled as a consequence of Israel's actions, as you seem to be trying to imply? Synotia (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Some material can be added in the article body (with careful contextualization per Once), it seems not particularly lead worthy given that the Arab League is not primarily responsible for why Palestinian-descended people are kept in legal limbo after all these generations as you suggest. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

If I didn't find Palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc lead-worthy, I'd have agreed with you. Omitting the Arab League paragraph is the opposite of this careful contextualization whose importance you are both eager to underline. Synotia (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Synotia: I am sure we can find a form of words which deals appropriately with everyone's concerns. Would you like to propose a redrafting of the lede here on the talk page so we can all agree on the drafting? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I still believe this diff is the best.

I propose to write this before the famed alinea:

Approximately 2,000,000 refugees and their descendants live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, under Israeli occupation and blockade. X million also live in neighboring Arab countries. [can optionally be enumerated]

The Arab League has instructed that Palestinians living in Arab countries should not be given citizenship of these countries, "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland". Synotia (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Arab League agreement is called the Casablanca protocol. Here's a recent book Last time I checked there were quite a few stateless refugees in the EU as well, idk if that's changed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. Doesn't quite say what Synotia's drafting suggests. Also fascinating to see Lebanon's shameful reservations.

I think an article on the Casablanca protocol would be a worthwhile topic. Synotia, would you be willing to help draft it with me?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What is there that contradicts my draft? I mentioned most notably the absence of right to vote, limited property rights and access to social services like healthcare and education, which is not covered in the Casablanca protocol either.

And sure, I'm open to help draft an article. I'm not sure it will be very long.
And yes, Lebanon is probably the worst place to be a Palestinian refugee, at least before the Syrian Civil War. Synotia (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The article body already has "The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to original Palestine Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland".

The question is whether that is correct and then whether it is lead worthy. For a start it is usual for the lead to summarize the body, not merely to repeat what is in the body. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter when it's one single sentence though, especially when it's such crucial background information to understand what follows.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is something Arab leaders, whether pan-Arabists or Islamists, have used for ages to try and unite the region... Synotia (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It does matter if it is undue (for the lead) ie is the importance being given to this particular aspect justified. The right of return, mentioned at several points in the body is mentioned only indirectly at the end of the lead, for example, and I would view that matter as being more important than the protocol as a contributory factor to the plight of the refugees, which is in essence the absence of justice for them. In truth I am not particularly happy with the lead as it stands, never mind further additions on the point. Should you write the Casablanca article you can wikilink it in the lead and interested persons can follow that to know more. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I am convinced both are relevant. And the right of return is directly mentioned however? Synotia (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

They are both relevant and that is why they are both in the article body, that does not mean that we need to make a meal out of the secondary cause in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Secondary cause of what? Synotia (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I just explained that, read the book I linked above (and there others) if you want to properly understand the situation. Happy Xmas. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again.

So... what do we do now? A couple of days later I still stand by my position that this stuff is lead-worthy. Synotia (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You have not consensus for that as yet, maybe take up Once suggestion to write the Casablanca article. If you want to get a wider view you could start an RFC and see whether other editors agree with you. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been reading up on the Casablanca protocol, which, by the way, was basically rescinded in 1991. The more I read the more certain I am that Synotia’s proposed edit would not be a correct representation.

The Casablanca protocol article will not be very long as it is just a part of the story. Some good articles as follows:

• https://issuu.com/middle-east-studies/docs/issue6 see article starting at page 103
• https://escholarship.org/content/qt9dx9w0gz/qt9dx9w0gz_noSplash_6ec56ac79aeee852960f40c715ce0634.pdf from page 143 onwards
• https://fada.birzeit.edu/bitstream/20.500.11889/3381/3/Socioeconomic%20Rights%20of%20Palestinian%20Refugees%20in%20Arab%20Counties.pdf
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538257

It is an important topic worth us covering properly.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite a bit in that book I linked as well. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, we would all end up more informed in the end :) The Casablanca Protocol is absolutely article-worthy... I do wonder how my proposal for the lead would not be a correct representation... Synotia (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

At least you would be able to link to it in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I searched to find the genesis of the quote in Synotia’s proposed text (which has been in the main body of the article for some time). It can be found in various pro-Israeli polemical publications quoted if it was an Arab League quote, but does not appear in any scholarly or official publications. It looks to have originated in that same 2004 Arab News article as the words of that single journalist with no prior source. On this basis I have removed the quote, so we can replace it with detailed scholarly analysis. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Here, the original text of the Casablanca protocol. You can find the words المحافظة على الكيان الفلسطيني which could be translated into "The preservation of the Palestinian Dasein". Or being, or, if you like, identity.

I also found this by the way, haven't read it all but it contains a bunch of information on the status of Palestinians, with sources underneath. It notably claims the Casablanca Protocol was more a gesture of goodwill than a binding thing. I don't know these folks' academic rigor though. Synotia (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The book has "the LAS was instrumental in the creation of a regional framework for the protection of basic rights – mostly economic and social rights – of Palestinian refugees, which culminated in the adoption of the 1965 Casablanca Protocol on the Treatment of Palestinians, discussed below. Arguably, in elaborating this framework, political (and security) considerations were a primary factor, as important as considerations of Arab solidarity; the main preoccupation of the Arab states, as vocally expressed in international fora, was to affirm that Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes in present-day Israel. Hence the Arab states decided that the refugees should not be naturalized, as this was perceived as undermining their claims under General Assembly resolution 194(III) of 1948 (hereinafter ‘resolution 194’)." In any case the situation of the refugees needs to be traced back through their effective exclusion from the Refugee convention and up through the PLO support for Saddam Hussein in 90/91 leading to resolution 5093 of 12 September 1991, which stipulated that the Protocol’s implementation would be subject to ‘the rules and laws in force in each state’ (a substantial weakening of the protocol in practice).Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I still don't see how this contradicts the "secure their right to return to their homeland"? Synotia (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Where have I said it did? My argument remains the same as always WP:UNDUE for the lead. Will you be starting the article (or an RFC) soon? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I have just managed to get hold of a copy of the book Selfstudier linked to (Albanese, F.P.; Takkenberg, L. (2020). Palestinian Refugees in International Law. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-108678-6.).

It is excellent. Its authors ([1] and [2]) are two of the world's foremost experts on the topic of Palestinian refugees.

The chapter IV. The Status of Palestinian Refugees in the Middle East and North Africa: Unpacking an Unsettling Solidarity on pages 183-268 covers the overarching topic we are discussing here in far more detail than I believe any other publication anywhere.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Article started at Casablanca Protocol. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I kind of forgot about rechecking how the article looked like lol. Feliz Navidad I guess, from Slowpoke Rodriguez.

Now sorry but the introduction is still crappy to me. There is your incorrect claim that Palestinians in Syria have the same rights as Syrians.

I also propose mentioning the Casablanca Protocol in the introduction with further information inside that article about the practical impact of that Protocol on Palestinian refugees. Synotia (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The wording there re Syrians is not incorrect. It does not say what you say it does. It is fine of course to be more fulsome, so we are clear what rights they do not have.

On the Casablanca protocol, feel free to draft something.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)