Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale--Over the past century, the Arab-Israeli conflict has dominated Middle East affairs. The ultimate and inevitable victims of these years of strife have been the people of the region who were uprooted from their homes and displaced. Two populations of refugees emerged – Palestinians from mandated Palestine and Jews from Arab countries - both groups recognized as bone fide refugees by the relevant UN Agencies. The UN, through statute and precedent, has developed international standards and mechanisms for the protection, resettlement and rehabilitation of refugees around the world. This dissertation will examine whether there was any anomaly in the way the UNresponded to these two different Middle East refugee populations. Methods--To determine whether, in fact, such an anomaly existed, research was conducted, among other places, at the following sites: Archives at the UN Headquarters ( New York and Geneva);Archives of the UNHCR Headquarters (Geneva);U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (College Park, MD); National Archives of Canada (Ottawa); World Jewish Congress Archives (New York and Jerusalem); American Jewish Committee Archives (New York); and Central Zionist Archives (Jerusalem).The following archival records were reviewed and analyzed: 1) Resolutions of the UN General Assembly and Security Council; 2) Transcripts of UN General Assembly and Security Council proceedings; 3) Transcripts of UNRWA and UNHCR proceedings; 4) Bi-lateral and Multilateral Treaties; Agreements and Proceedings of Multinational Entities (e.g. Quartet, Arab League; etc.); and 5) Books, Memoirs of Statesmen on Middle East Affairs, Articles. Results-- Extensive research into voting patterns and UN meeting transcripts reveal that the UN didaccord differential treatment to Palestinian refugees, by every measure, including, among others: UN resolutions; UN Agency involvement; and financial support. Conclusion-- This dissertation will attempt to answer, among others, the following questions: Whywould the UN react so differently towards Palestinian and Jewish refugees? Is all this a case study in the uniqueness of the Jews? Or in UN bias? Or collusion by Arab states; or in how a seemingly objective international organization can be is subverted politically?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".