I don't think they've taken out a position, and that's not especially surprising. The experience of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, post their refugee status, is remarkably different from that of Palestinian refugees. I hesitated at taking the committee into something that's a little off topic and very political, but the experience of Palestinian refugees is readily evident to everybody who cares to look. For the most part, those who haven't left the region have been limited in terms of the opportunities provided for them by the countries in which they find themselves, so the problem has grown and become exacerbated as generations move forward.
In the case of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, most have gone to Israel, but for those who have resettled in the west, their experience, post their refugee status, has been very different. So here it's more, as Ms. Waldman mentioned, about recognizing the narrative and the fact that a particular event, the creation of the State of Israel, the Arab-Israeli conflict, produced two distinct but equally compelling sets of refugees. One is recognized in the formal narrative of countries like Canada. The other is ignored. To bring balance and equity into the equation, to be able to move forward and say that a resolution addresses in a meaningful way the experience of all those who are impacted by the conflict, there's a need to bring in formal recognition of the Jewish experience.