Humanitarian Dilemmas for the Palestinian Refugees & the Question of Return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the situation of Palestinian refugees who have been living in Arab host countries as a result of the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars. Although their right of return was recognized by the UN Commission on Human Rights, 7 million refugees and 450,000 internally displaced Palestinians continue to live under unfavourable conditions, constituting about seventy percent of the entire Palestinian population worldwide (10.1 million) (BADIL, n.d, para1). During the refugee experience, Palestinians have suffered from all kinds of human rights violations in different countries. However, they considered the denial of their right of return as the most significant source of grievance. The right of return has become a major political goal and mobilizing influence of Palestinian nationalism. In this paper, I will use Iraq as a case study to demonstrate the continued instability and discrimination that Palestinians face in host countries and difficulties for stable settlement in exile. The experience of Palestinian refugees in Iraq between 1948 and 2008 indicates that even in countries where Palestinian refugees had seemingly favourable conditions, changes in political climate and their lack of citizenship rights make life in exile a perilous experience. Recognizing the issue of return as a legal and political matter, I will argue in this paper that based on the Palestinian refugees’ experience in various Arab host countries, securing the right of return should also be seen as a viable humanitarian solution. In the case of Palestinian refugees from and in Iraq, the right of return should be considered an emergency measure.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".