Descriptively, I think, you're reasonably accurate. The only comment I would make about the premise of the observation is that I do recall that at the beginning of the Oslo process, when Canada was invited to serve as the gavel holder of the refugee working group, there were some focused discussions about what the scope of the working group's activity should be, and whether they should include consideration of Jews who had become refugees from Arab lands.
The conclusion then, one which , frankly, we supported, was that the working group was focusing its efforts on providing material help to Palestinian refugees so that they too could benefit from the peace dividends going forward, and to bring them in parallel with other dimensions of the peace process so that there could be some uniformity when it came time to move toward resolutions.
There was a deliberate decision to not address Jewish refugees from Arab lands, because they in fact had already benefited from meaningful resolution by their absorption into Israel or into countries throughout the diaspora.
Where I would offer some comment is that, first I think we have to divide it into two separate categories. As a Canadian, it's important for me to make a distinction between Canada's response to the reality of Jewish refugees from Arab countries to that of Jews who were facing similar challenges in Europe prior to World War II.
In the case of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, Canadian officials were very responsive. They recognized it quickly. They recommended steps to address it. The result was an expedited process of immigration to Canada. In that respect, there is no quarrel or grievance against Canada's approach.
We focus on somehow formally recognizing it, and that's really the nub of your question. In that regard, I would offer just the following thought.
The immediate instinct when confronted with an issue of refugees is to fix the problem, to provide them with material help, to support their transition into a safer environment, and so forth. With respect to Jewish refugees from Arab countries, that was less of an urgent call because it was resolved, whereas I think we would all agree there are acute problems confronting Palestinian refugees, who require attention today to materially enhance the quality of their lives.
It is only when we get to a point where we're actually starting to focus on what a comprehensive resolution looks like that we do an inventory of all of those outstanding issues that require some attention. From our perspective, attention to the Jewish refugee claims from Arab countries starts, and may end, with formal recognition of including that narrative that Ms. Waldman referred to.
President Clinton came up with some kind of formula. It's rather complex. I don't know that it's in the committee's interest to inquire into it. But I think in terms of allowing stakeholders to exit a comprehensive resolution of the conflict, complete and whole, it has to include some kind of validation of their experience.
I think it's in that respect that we got more attention to it over the last decade than previously.