I was making the point last week. I think we had a very useful historical discussion on how the word “refugee” appeared in the 1967 resolution without any adjective in front of it. We can say legitimately that Resolution 242, which is the touchstone of a lot of discussion still today about how we're going to get to where we need to get to, is one where you can say there's no reason the world couldn't recognize the refugee situation involving the Jewish population in Arab countries. There's no reason that can't or shouldn't be done in that resolution.
My sense from listening carefully to what Ms. Waldman had to say, and I'm very appreciative of her description, is that there's a big difference between recognizing a narrative as part of something that needs to be done in the world, and looking at what the political issue is here with respect to whether or not we're going to get people to the table to discuss the issues affecting the Palestinians and the Israelis and the Israeli government. I think that's something we need to reflect on when we look at what our own resolution will look like.
It seems to me we do need to think very carefully. We can't draw an exact parallel between the situation involving the Palestinian refugees who still maintain their refugee status and those hundreds of thousands of Jews who left the Middle East—a great proportion went to Israel, and a large number went to North American countries and elsewhere—who are now in the second and third generation of being settled.
The narrative absolutely has to be told. That history has to be understood. The question of what political form that takes seems to me to still be a question that we as a committee need to consider as we go forward.