Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194

Names Neither Palestinian nor Israeli Refugees
Frankly, I think this addition is a bit frivolous, and used by ideological Zionists to obfuscate the issue. It parallels efforts to cloud UN 242, for example -- it is very clear what refugees were being referenced, imho. Every refugee has the right of return under international law, regardless, so there would be no reason to stipulate between Palestinian and Israeli refugees (even though its rather clear that, for the most part, Arabs were expelled, not Israelis). -- cc


 * The cold hard fact is, no adjective was given,. The rest is in your head. As for "Every refugee has the right of return under international law" - how many German refugees of 1945 and their descendents are allowed to return to Koenigsberg, Breslau and Danzig? And let's not forget, Germany started the war, while Israel did not.←Humus sapiens ну? 07:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, not disputing the facts, but what the purpose of making such an irrelevant observation in the article is. By the way, the UDHR was implemented after 1945, and was not applicable retroactively.
 * If you believe in international law, the Palestinians, and all refugees of war, have the right of return. That is, unless you believe victims of ethnic cleansing have no right to return from where they were expelled, which is a fairly abhorrent argument. -- cc


 * Furthermore: when the article in question instructs the Conciliation Committee to "Maintain close relations with the director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees", is it really any mystery if they are discussing Jewish or Palestinian refugees? -- cc


 * "Palestine Refugees" is open for interpretation: Israel's population quickly doubled because hundreds of thousands of Jews fled or were expelled from the Arab lands. See Austerity in Israel.
 * You only prove that the unreformed UN is skewed towards the Palestinians. No other group of refugees inherits this status, and even the definition is of the term is different from regular refugees. The UNWRA, the UN Division for Palestinian Rights, the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, etc. are more evidence of that.
 * Post-WW2 is just one example of ethnic cleansing, unfortunately there are many more. Millions of refugees work to improve lives of their children and lose this status after a while, but - uniquely - one single group carries their victimhood status from one generation to another. BTW, is Quwait allowing 400,000 of the "victims of ethnic cleansing" of 1991 "to return from where they were expelled"?
 * Closer to the topic, the facts about the UNGA R.194 are: it is a non-binding recommendation, it does not name any group of "refugees" and it puts forward certain conditions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only did I demonstrate the UN was 'skewed' towards the Palestinians, I also proved that international convention and law is also in favor of their right of return -- rather problematic for your argument, not mine. Is "Quwait" allowing the refugees to return? No, but they should. So should Israel. Chill out. -- CC


 * According to what "international convention and law", descendents of refugees should be included? What group, other than Palestinians, claim this right? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * UN Resolution 194 stipulates it, actually. Read what I wrote above. If you are really seriously suggesting that UN 194 didn't refer to Israel, why was fulfillment of it a condition for Israel's entry into the United Nations? -- CC


 * Is this a riddle? I don't know what youre talking about. Also, you failed to answer the question. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * lol, uh. -- cc

Article is fine now. Consulted a number of academics on the issue; none had ever heard of such a claim (that is, that UN 191 was ambiguous and could, perhaps, be applied to the Jewish refugees in Israel). Pathetic nonsense, though I guess these kind of ideologues are among the side effects we have to deal with in an open-source encyclopedia. Thesobrietysrule 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it looks daft to me, it mentions what the resolution does not mention, in terms of race of refugees - however it does not mention the weather, or the tooth fairy. It's not for us to interpret what the resolution does and does not cover - that is Original Research. This section should list neither race of refugee. Removed. Rcnet 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * never mind, I was looking at an old diff. I'm glad it is gone. Rcnet 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk ... 4 Article 11 - UNGA res 194 did not use the UNRWA definition of refugees ... talknic (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Pappe material
Scott, you've changed the material in front of the Pappe citation. In particular, you've add the phrase "of all" to the word "repatriation", added the value judgement "only" to the description of the 100,000 refugees, and additional value judgement "reduced offer" in front of the phrase "was rejected by the Arabs". Do you actually have access to the source by Pappe? Is this what he says? Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate template
This article is not about the "Nabka" but about a particular UNGA Res with consequences for both sides. Stellarkid (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article 11 - UNGA res 194 did not use the UNRWA definition of refugees
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee rights, was adopted 11t Dec 1948, 12 months before UNRWA was established later 8th Dec 1949. Secondary Sources citing UNRWA figures in relationship to UNGA res 194, are unreliable on the point. Primary Source Document: For the purpose of finding accurate Secondary Sources (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7)

Secondary Source: ... pages 38, 19

Suggestion: Remove all unreliable content ... talknic (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Were Jewish Refugees from the Arab States mentioned in UNGA res 194?
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III). Palestine -- Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator Having considered further the situation in Palestine,

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations; Jewish refugees from the Arab States weren't from Palestine talknic (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed statement on Jewish Refugees from Arab States - pending this discussion talknic (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If Jewish refugees were properly compensated for their property, as in they had the opportunity to sell it, then the UN would not have been concerned with their situation. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8D9F:2DE3:8AB4:356C (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Jewish exodus had yet to begin at this point in time.2601:140:8900:61D0:C47A:7ACF:7475:35F (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
In a recent edit and  User:Night w, change the formulation:
 * "Article 11 of the resolution that deals with the issue of refugees and compensation, has drawn the most attention"

with:
 * "..calls/acknowledge .. 'right of return' .. 'refuges' ".

Considering that the issue of refugees is already mentioned in the lead, his adds the term 'right of return'. A term which is not part of resolution text, but one of the interpretation of article 11 (i.e. the 'Palestinian right of return'). As well as removing info about 'Article 11'. I think that the initial formulation here, is more natural and informative. Thoughts?--Mor2 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One idea would be to say, instead of " It also acknowledged the right of return for refugees to their homes" e.g. "The resolution is often cited as a legal basis for the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to their homes." This would present the main point from an encyclopedic view, as this is probably the context where the resolution is usually mentioned. --Dailycare (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But this would violate NPOV, since there are more than one view on the meaning? whats wrong with the current variant that both note Article 11 and the notablity of this resolution in terms of dealing with the issue of refugees and compensation, in a neutral way?--Mor2 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way would that violate WP:NPOV? It's should be easily verifiable that the resolution is frequently cited in this context (see e.g. 1, 2), and if sources say so then it's neutral to say so. Saying simply dealing with refugees isn't very informative, IMO. Note also that saying that it's often cited doesn't say that this is necessarily the correct reading of the text, it only says it's often cited. --Dailycare (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Binding
UN Charter Article 6:

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

General Assembly resolutions form part of the basis to judge violations of the UN Charter. It's not fair to give punishments without warnings if laws aren't clear, and in international relationships the rules often aren't clear. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8D9F:2DE3:8AB4:356C (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2019
Resolusjon 194 has no referance to "Palestinian refugees" and therfor include also the Jewish refugees from this conflict. Secound sentence should be: "The Resolution defined principles for reaching a final settlement and returning of refugees to their homes". E-Tarud (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article states "Palestine refugees", not "Palestinian". – Þjarkur (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. The text of the resolution also refers to "Palestine refugees", so it looks like the article should follow that usage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
Is the fact that a line of text in this article is highlighted in yellow a good illustration of the bias of its author and why so many people consider Wikipedia slanted? Should the individual who performed this highlighting and those who approved it be tossed off Wikipedia by their kiesters for demonstrating their lack of objectivity? Just askin... 69.138.244.231 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing as there is no edit request. Try to be friendly to your fellow editors here, please. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Avnon
It has been suggested that the long quote by Avnon is undue weight. Fair enough. I'll restore a short paraphrase of the quote when it is convenient. --GHcool (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not fair. This article is about the resolution itself, not about the concept of a Palestinian right of return. Since most of Avnon's quote deals with the concept and not the resolution itself it is UNDUE for this article. Regarding your other changes:


 * 1. MOS:BQ reads: Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation I have previously referred you to this part of the style guideline on the talk page of the BDS movement. The style guideline is there for a reason which is that long inline quotes makes the article harder to read for people with poor eyesight and for people who aren't native English speakers. Please leave the block quotes as they are.


 * 2. Bernadotte's diplomacy was instrumental in laying the foundation for resolution 194. His quotes very much belongs to the article.


 * 3. This edit is controversial. Arafat didn't "reject" any offer at Camp David and the part about the API doesn't belong in the article. Again, the article is about the resolution itself, not the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Im The IP  (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your civil, yet emphatic, response. My replies:
 * 1. Fair enough.  I will restore the blockquote.
 * 2. You are right that Bernadotte's diplomacy was instrumental in laying the foundation for resolution 194.  You are wrong that his quotes belong in the article alongside a paraphrase of his views.  It is redundant and unnecessary.  The paraphrase is encyclopedic and in keeping with Wikipedia style.
 * 3. The edit in question would not be controversial among historians, American diplomats, or even within the Arab world.  It is cited to a reliable source, but I'll add even more sources if you insist.  The part about the API reflects the Arab world's evolving interpretation of 194, but I can see that this is not clear in the previous edit.  I will revise.  --GHcool (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. I believe that Bernadotte's very strong views about the refugees right to return should be accurately portrayed in the article. If it wasn't for his work, and his subsequent assassination, resolution 194 might never have been drafted. But alright. 3. While one could easily claim that it was Barak who rejected what Arafat had to offer, this article is not the right place to discuss Camp David. One should refer to other articles about Palestinian refugees for such discussions. Im The IP  (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Flawed attribution
Palestinian representatives likewise rejected Resolution 194.[4]

The reference is presented as being to 'Cambridge university', but is in fact from '1948 Refugees: Proceedings of an international workshop, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law, 14–15 December 2016', retelling, AFAICS, a discussion between various scholars, many of them Israeli. It's not clear which of the participants' statements the claim is sourced to, which makes it difficult to find, let alone to assess the reliability of the person who made the statement.--82.137.115.143 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * True, I'll check it up. I think the reference to the "Palestinians" is to the Arab Higher Committee but I'm not sure. Im The IP  (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Try as I might, I can't find who the Palestinians were who rejected resolution 194. Maybe you can lend us a hand? :) You're very knowledgeable in this area.  Im The IP  (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that this claim does not appear in the given source. The closest is the contrary: "The primary resolution upon which the Palestinians base their claim to a right to return is UN General Assembly Resolution 194(III) of 1948." This isn't a strict contradiction since Palestinians then are not the same as Palestinians now. At the moment I don't find commentary from a formal Palestinian body in 1948, but I'm still looking. Zerotalk 12:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Palestinian rejection
The rationale for this edit makes sense superficially. I agree that the Camp David and Taba peace talks are not the main topic of this article. The issue now is that we bring up the topic, but don't tell the second half of the story: the Israelis brought up a compromise and then ....... what? Did the Palestinians accept the offer? Is there peace now? Have the terms of Resolution 194 been satisfied? If anti-Israel advocates are embarrassed to make public Arafat's rejection of the offer, I suppose they will have to find some other way to explain what happened to the offer (cited by by a reliable source, of course). But it is odd that the offer is mentioned in the article without the response. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure any specific bids in negotiations are relevant to this article. This article should sketch the big picture; Israel doesn't admit any responsibility for the refugee situation and insists that they should be resettled in Arab countries while the Palestinian position (which coincidentally mirrors the one expressed by the UN) is that they have a right of return based on Resolution 194. We already have Palestinian right of return, Palestinian refugees, and probably other articles where a discussion of Camp David would fit better. Im The IP  (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it your position that the reader of this article should be left to assume that Israel's 2000 offer (which is already in the article) did not meet Palestinian needs? I'm not certain why this should be left unsaid. --GHcool (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that any discussion of specific bids during negotiations is WP:UNDUE in this article. The Camp David negotiations are already mentioned in Palestinian right of return. There is no need to repeat that material in this article. Im The IP  (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And yet a specific bid is during negotiations is mentioned in the article: "Another offer came during the 2000 Camp David negotations in which Israel offered to allow a maximum of 100,000 refugees to return, on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification." Since it is apparently undue weight to give the result of a bid that is already mentioned I'll add a "see" template so that readers won't be kept in suspense. --GHcool (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That part is also UNDUE. How about we don't mention Camp David at all, would that be acceptable to you? Im The IP  (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, that would not be acceptable. The source cited speaks about Resolution 194.  --GHcool (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That one source refers to resolution 194 is not a great argument as there are thousands of sources that refer to that resolution in various contexts. Also there weren't only the Camp David negotiations, there were also the Taba negotiations in 2001, the Geneva Accord from 2003, and so on. Camp David is only tangentially related to UN Resolution 194 itself. Im The IP  (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad you brought up Taba. I added the relevant Resolution 194 stuff from that summit.  Feel free to add the Geneva Accord of 2003.  If not, I will.  --GHcool (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are clearly missing the point. Information about all the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and/or Arab states doesn't belong in this article. There are dozens of articles to which you can add that information but this article is about the resolution itself. It doesn't need to and it shouldn't cover everything in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Im The IP  (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the various failed negotiations should be reduced to wikilinks to the appropriate articles. There is a fundamental problem of balance in the way they are presented anyway. On each occasion, each side made proposals that the other rejected. It isn't for us to decide whose proposal was better. We shouldn't present it as "Israel offered, Palestinians rejected" any more than we should present it as "Palestinians offered, Israel rejected". Zerotalk 11:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it Zero's position that this article would be equally valid if it were to say that Palestinians offered "to allow a maximum of 100,000 refugees to return, on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification" but that Israel rejected the offer? The sources say otherwise. --GHcool (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert about Taba
This revert was inappropriate. The source is cited and its relevance to the article is beyond dispute. --GHcool (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are kidding, right? Tanja Salem is an "independent researcher". And it's a "working paper". Who she? And what has Taba to do with Res 194? Apart from this tangential and incidental reference. There are plenty source books on questions raised by 194 but this isn't one of them.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Selfstudier, you make a fair point. Do you have any source books on questions raised by 194 that you'd recommend? Also, how do you feel about this source? --GHcool (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Try a range of views, that will keep you busy for a while. I'll look at other and let you know.Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My point, and I think Zero's too, is that discussions about negotiations doesn't belong to this article because it is tangential. You already added the material to the article Israeli–Palestinian peace process so it is not clear why you want to add it to this article too? The Lausanne Conference in 1949 is an exception because the mediators attempted to get Israel and the Arab states to negotiate on the basis of resolution 181 and 194. After 1949 the international community, more or less, gave up and stopped trying to get Israel to repatriate the refugees. Im The IP  (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Taba, Geneva and the rest are all covered properly in the ref I gave above, if you base edits on that, you won't go far wrong and there won't be questions about source validity and so on, apart from the usual. Else it's just picking this bit or that bit.Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020
1948 Palestine war should be changed to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I've never heard of it referred to as the Palestine war in my life, and I'm 30 and fairly well-versed on the topic. 69.67.41.66 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you click through? It's a redirect to 1947–1949 Palestine war which is a common name when one wants to include the conflict prior to May 48 which is what we want to do here because that's when the refugee problem began. I can change the given to the redirect if you think it's misleading? Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The common name is the 1948 Palestine war.  Since the article deals with the refugee flight that began before May 15, the name "the 1948 Arab-Israeli" doesn't work here.  Im The IP  (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * DONE. ✅

Palestinian representatives likewise rejected Resolution 194.[4]
The source for this is poor and ambiguous. I can find no primary source that details a Palestinian objection. In fact, it would be difficult to do so since the Palestinians had no official leadership at the time. Mcdruid (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree its not the greatest source (a bit one sided), the Palestinians did initially object, have a look at the section Palestinian and Arab views and the sources there, we want secondary sources, not primary sources. We could add something in the lead about the reason they objected and then when they altered their opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)