Talk:Palestinian right of return

Two citations in this article link to the front page of the Jerusalem Post, without any other details.

Reference 10: "Israel News - Online Israeli News Covering Israel & The Jewish World …". 8 July 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

Reference 89: "Satellite News and latest stories | The Jerusalem Post". fr.jpost.com.

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)

I added "As of 2024^[update] this right does not exist"; it was reverted, explaining on my talk page that the wording was not appropriate. My intention was not to express any opinion, but to add necessary information to the introduction, which did not say that the right did, or didn't exist - fine for people who know the history, but not useful for someone who came to the encyclopaedia to find out about it. I hope that somebody will add the simple fact, using whatever wording is considered appropriate. I could do this, but don't want even to hint at edit warring. If different wording is preferred, please edit. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Correction: the article wasn't edited to remove my addition as it was reported on my Talk page by a user who said they didn't have the right to edit. Wording such as "As of 2024 this right has not been implemented" was suggested instead of "doesn't exist". I leave it to others to consider and, if appropriate, change. I've added strikeout and insert to my original comment to correct it. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"stands in contrast with its Law of Return that grants all Jews the right to settle"

The word used for Jews is 'settle'. This is a clear biased wording trying to disconnect jews from their inherit right to live in the land.

The law of return in Israel, allows jews to *Return*.

Changed to "migrate" from the missused 'settle'. 192.114.23.228 (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Request denied. Settle is not 'clear biased wording'. It is, in fact, the wording used by Nefesh B'Nefesh e.g. here. Edit requests based on personal opinions are not useful. Content is not based on personal opinions. See WP:EDITXY for how to write a request. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A crucial aspect regarding the "Palestinian right of return" is missing, it is the geographic and topographic impossibility. I have here written an article how it could be added:

The Geographic and Topographic Impossibility

A crucial aspect often overlooked regarding the "Palestinian right of return" is the geographic and topographic impossibility. 60% of Israel is desert, 30% is mountains, and only 10% is flatland. Within this 10% of flatland, 60% of Israel’s population resides. This results in a density of 2,680 people per km², particularly as the internationally recognized area of Israel is only about half the size of Switzerland. In comparison, Bangladesh—the non-city-state with the highest population density—has only half that density. Even if you consider that 11% of Bangladesh is mountainous (housing only 1% of its population), the remaining 89% of flatland has a density of 1,500 people per km². Israel’s density is still 79% higher. Furthermore, Bangladesh has plenty of water, unlike Israel.

The so-called 'right of return' is an impossibility. Even if you include the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, and the Gaza Strip—where many people already live—there is simply not enough space or resources for these people to move to Israel. Even with those areas, the total size is still only two-thirds that of Switzerland, and much of it (47.5%) is desert."

Even if Resolution 194 were more than just a recommendation—it is indeed formulated as such: "...that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date..."—it would be meaningless, even though it was adopted by the Security Council, which it is not. The reason for this is the overriding legal principle: "Impossibilium nulla est obligatio" (One cannot be obligated to do the impossible).

The issue of space exists regardless of the demographic nature of the state. Even without further Jewish immigration, Israel is already facing such density that it is considering tightening the requir ements for the "Law of Return." Without the presence of settlements in Judea and Samaria, Israel would already struggle to accommodate its current population growth. The situation is even more complex when considering the entire Jewish diaspora; even if the Palestinian territories were uninhabited, there would still not be enough resources and space to accommodate all potential immigrants.

While international experts are aware of these geographic limitations, acknowledging them would require neighboring Arab states to integrate refugees—a policy they have historically resisted. Many nations may choose to ignore these physical realities to maintain international consensus or to prioritize theoretical rights over practical impossibility. The Truthseeker 91 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. This appears to be your own original research, which cannot be used on Wikipedia. Day Creature (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)