Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Fairness

Wiki says:

"...it gave the majority of the land (56%) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7% of it, and remained a minority of the population.[87] Mehran Kamrava also notes the disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state.[87] Eugene Bovis says that the Jewish leadership had rejected an earlier partition proposal because they felt it didn't allocate enough territory to the proposed Jewish state.[88]"

- - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But Half of Israel was/is the Negev Desert. How can Palestinians complain about cultivability! and 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land. The above quotation the usual MISLEADING red hering "7%"

"...Once again Philip Mattar was featured, repeating some of the same falsehoods he had uttered in the previous segment:

""""The Jews were being offered 55% of Palestine when in fact they had owned only 7% of the country. Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice."""

Mattar's clear, and false, implication is that if Jews owned only some small percentage of the land, then Arabs must have owned the rest, in this case more than 93% of the country.

- But this is nonsense – in Mandate Palestine the Arabs owned little more land than did the Jews. Indeed, going back to Ottoman times, most of the country was state-owned land, not under any individual ownership. Thus, under the Ottoman code one of the main land categories was miri, meaning land belonging to the Emir. During the Mandate, the British carried out detailed land surveys, marking off who owned what, and according to figures in the British Survey of Palestine (republished and endorsed by Mattar's Institute for Palestine Studies), at least 65% of the country was state land, and probably much more than that...

- http://blogspot.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=291 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The ownership of 'Real Estate' is not the same as 'territorial' ownership or rights. E.g., Japanese Govt institutions, Companies/Corporations and individual citizens own Real Estate in Australia. They have no territorial rights whatsoever.

Territory belongs to all the citizens of an entity. Palestine was a non-self governing territory. It belonged to all the legitimate citizens of Palestine.

After Israel's independence, the territory that became Israel was renamed the State of Israel and only the territory within the extent of Israeli sovereignty belonged to Israeli citizens. The territory in what remained of Palestine, which has never been renamed, belongs to the citizens of the non-self governing territory of Palestine. It is protected under the UN Charter Chapt XI. ... talknic (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab reaction

"John Wolffe says that while Zionists have attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to intransigence, others have argued that it was rejected because it was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56 percent) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7 percent of it, and remained a minority of the population."

This quote is not balanced. It gives the impression that the Arab inhabitants owned the other 93% which is false. (Note above: Fairness). Chesdovi (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wolfee is talking about a permanent division of all the available land in the Mandated State between the majority group and a minority group. The Mandate secured the rights and position of the majority non-Jewish communities to a corresponding majority of the public lands of the State. Article 80 of the UN Charter also secured those rights and interests. In the early days of the Mandate era Zionists were disappointed to learn that very little of the State-owned lands were available for Jewish settlement. That was because Arab cultivators had already settled them or had acquired pre-existing rights to cultivate them. See State lands and rural development in mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948, By Warwick P. N. Tyler, pages 21-26 [1] Ben Gurion himself testified that Jews only held title to about 6 percent of the land and that they were effectively prevented from acquiring much more by the 1939 White Paper policies. Those policies were reflected in by the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance.

The quote very accurately describes the arguments of many commentators that the division was not equitable. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, the members of the Arab League were prepared to acquiesce to a partition, e.g. [2] But, they rejected the division proposed by the General Assembly. harlan (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, that's somewhat ridiculous, considering that in 1937 the Arabs had almost unanimously rejected the Peel plan (much less favorable to the Jews), while in 1947 official Arab spokesmen were not willing to openly go on the public record in favor of territorial compromise. AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi -- The quote is kind of simplistic, in that a very significant percentage of the claimed Jewish 56% was actually agriculturally-worthless desert land in the Negev, and since the Arabs made it very clear in their public pronouncements in 1947 and early 1948 that they were unalterably opposed to allowing Jews to exercise national sovereignty over any territory whatsoever, and would regard such an occurrence as an intolerable insult to the sacred rights of the Arab nation which could only be wiped away with blood (something that sure sounds like "intransigence" to me, or technically abstract absolutist maximalism). However, this does not mean that the quote should be automatically removed from the article (as long as it's somewhat contextualized and not given undue prominence). AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is fine, all I am asking is for context. The Jews may have owned 7%, but it should be stated that Jewish land purchase had been severly curtailed during the Ottoman period and under the British. Additionally, it must be made clear that the other 93% was not 1) All owned by the Arabs in the country, 2) Vast swaths were made up of "state lands", and owned by the governing entity or were ownerless. Chesdovi (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Switched Votes?

In contrast to other publications, the Wikipedia article identifies three states as having switched their votes from no to yes.

Is the article claiming that these three states actually voted no and then yes? Or is it a change that happened internally during the weeks leading up to the vote?

If the later, these are hardly the only countries that "switched".

In fact, the decision to highlight countries representing the minimum number of changes necessary to reverse the outcome would seem to be POV based, as opposed to being based on some objective criterion.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor."

When authority was formally handed over to a successor state, then the departing British governor and incoming leaders of the new independent state would gather together around a flagpole, and the Union Jack would be ceremonially lowered to the sound of bagpipe music, and then the flag of the new independent state would be ceremonially raised. There were no British-Israeli flagpole ceremonies on May 14th-15th 1948, and any suggestion that there were any British-Israeli flagpole ceremonies is in fact historically quite ludicrous and absurd... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From page 13 of the Introduction of Britain, Palestine and Empire:The Mandate Years by Rory Miller:

From November 1947 until the final British withdrawal and abandonment of Palestine on 15 May 1948, High Commissioner Cunningham did his best to achieve some order and harmony in the face of the increasingly violent conflict between Arabs and Jews on the ground, and the seething resentment of British officials in both Palestine and London over the turn of events.

Despite instructions from London for him to leave Palestine well before the May withdrawal deadline, Cunningham insisted on remaining in his post until the final day of British rule. But despite his best efforts the end of the Mandate was mired in ‘shame and humiliation’ as one long-serving diplomat put it, and the withdrawal from Palestine was, by all accounts, a low point in the annals of British imperial retreat. As David Vital, one of the most authoritative historians of the Mandate era has summed up:

There was no ceremonial lowering and raising of flags in May 1948, no bands playing national anthems, no dignitaries exchanging salutes and pious messages of hope and amity, no be-medalled and tiaraed representatives of the British royal family present. Palestine, a political unit unknown before the British arrived, was simply evacuated and, upon evacuation, dissolved.

If you pay a fee, you can see a nice photo of Cunningham leaving Palestine on 14 May 1948 on this site.

    ←   ZScarpia   04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, it looks to me as though you've broken the 1RR restriction on the article. If you agree, please revert yourself. Of three edits made in the preceding twenty-four hours, two made reversions.     ←   ZScarpia   05:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What does "revert yourself" mean, now that you've extensively re-edited the text in question? Do you want me to undo your edits? Anyway, the edits of User:Xchange and User:NickCT were extremely unconstructive and unproductive... AnonMoos (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I expect you to undo the last edit you made (and leave it undone for a reasonable length of time). Note that, if another editor gets here first, they may not give you the opportunity to do it (perhaps it wasn't a good idea to be rude about Xchange and NickCT's editing).     ←   ZScarpia   06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

However, that edit didn't violate any revert rule, since the text in question wasn't involved in any of the earlier edits. (I think the earlier phrasing is clearer than what you changed it to.) And it's the case that Xchange and NickCT's edits completely failed to improve the article in any manner whatsoever (other than possibly Xchange pointing out that the withdrawal wasn't completed on May 30). Adding a "cite" tag could have been constructive, but simply deleting highly relevant and factually true statements was unconstructive. AnonMoos (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Our understanding of the 1RR rule is obviously different. I have no problem with with the last text change you made (the earlier changes, which had the article state that the British withdrawal began on the 15 May 1948, were factually wrong, though), but I believe that you should have waited longer to make it.     ←   ZScarpia   12:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, since it had nothing to do with the earlier text in dispute?? It's rather unfortunate that you chose to escalate this to a level of cumbersome bureaucratic formalities and tedious goldenrod-triplicate-paperwork procedures based solely on your basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia repreated reversion rules (which govern repeated changing back the SAME text, not text which was sort of almost vaguely in the same vicinity as some other text). AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though my understanding of what constitutes a revert is incorrect. Perhaps my understanding of what constitutes a breach of the 1RR rule is incorrect also, but the way I understand it is that if you carry out more than one non-consecutive revert anywhere in the article (it doesn't have to be to the same piece of text) then you've broken the rule. I will ask somebody to clarify for me, though, because obviously I don't want to make any more false reports. Gaining a different understanding will also affect the way I myself edit.

From my point of view, I was trying to be nice to you. I thought you'd breached the 1RR rule and was giving you a chance to undo your last edit in order to resolve the problem. If you'd come back and explained that, as far as you could see, the last edit wasn't a revert, I would have discussed it with you. If you'd shown any recognition that I was trying to act in a friendly way, I would have held off. Instead you responded with negative remarks about other editors, which looked a bit cheeky because the edits you'd been making were factually incorrect. I gave you a chance to remedy the situation or respond positively in some other way. When you didn't use the opportunity, I raised a report at AE. I'm sure that quite a few editors, if you had indeed breached the 1RR rule, would have reported you to the AE noticeboard straightaway.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the basic import of Wikipedia reversion policies was rather clear. Guess there's always a new way that someone can misinterpret something. It would have been nice if you had a zeal to prevent relevant factual material from being deleted from the article, similar to the zeal you seem to have for petty-bureaucratic technicalities... AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Which relevant factual detail should I have prevented from being deleted? The incorrect and non-factual detail that you were trying to add, that the British withdrawal started on the 15th of May 1948 (when, in fact, the withdrawal was virtually complete by that date)? If I had a zeal for petty-bureaucratic technicalities, I think that I would have raised more than the one AE report (the current one), and zero ANI reports that I've raised in the time (more than 5 years), that I've been editing on Wikipedia. When it comes to ARBPIA articles, I think that enforcing the current 1RR restriction on them rises above the level of insisting that petty-bureaucratic details are respected. In normal circumstances, I would have offered an apology for raising a report on false premises, but why cast pearls where I don't think they would be appreciated?     ←   ZScarpia   18:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, that happens to be essential nonsense. I was trying my best to prevent the TRUE AND RELEVANT fact that "During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor" (see section title above) from being removed from this article, while also preserving Xchange's point that the withdrawal only started on May 14th (though I don't think that the previous wording really stated that the withdrawal ended on the 15th, it could be considered ambiguous). None of this was particularly helped by your apparent eagerness to cast yourself in the role of a petty enforcer of technical petty-bureaucratic legalisms and cumbersome goldenrod-forms-filed-in-triplicate procedures whose basic purpose you didn't even really correctly understand... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Before your first edit, the second sentence of the British reaction section read: It refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period and announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine. After your first edit, it read: It refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period and announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine starting on 15 May 1948. You did, though, get things a little more (but not entirely) correct in the Lead, but there you were re-adding text that Xchange (who didn't state that the withdrawal began on the 14th) had just removed (after previously having changed the text announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine on 15 May 1948 to announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine by 15 May 1948).     ←   ZScarpia   21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

British handover, 1948

Sorry for the great delay (I am not a great fan or proficient user of Google Books -- it strains my browser close to the limit for one thing -- so I had to physically journey to the university library), but I'll be adding some references in the next day or two. It turns out that the British claimed to be handing things over to the United Nations Palestine Commission only (not to Jews and not to Arabs) -- but all at once at the stroke of midnight of May 14th/15th itself, without cooperating or coordinating anything with the Commission before that moment (in fact, the British refused to allow the members of the Commission to even enter the country until a rather late date), and without making any concrete preparations on the ground to transfer any actual territory or governmental institutions, assets, or records to the Commission. Given all this, and that the Commission had no troops at its command in what was rapidly becoming an active war zone, the façade of handing things over to the United Nations Palestine Commission was beyond being even a bad joke, as the British themselves were fully aware in private. Sir Alec Kirkbride, British Ambassador to Amman, had some choice (private?) remarks about how self-defeating and petty the British policy was:

Kirkbride was particularly critical of the government's refusal to allow in the UN commission, whose members ultimately "achieved nothing in the face of the non-cooperative stand of the authorities, which made any orderly transfer of power impossible". Kirkbride viewed with some cynicism the British claim that they could not abdicate authority prior to the end of the Mandate, for he had noted "how far the responsible quarters abdicated their duties when it suited them to do so".
-- Michael J. Cohen, Palestine and the Great Powers 1945-48 (1982 ISBN 0691053715), p.317.

Sir Alexander Cadogan apparently announced the basics of this policy to the General Assembly ca. November 13 1947...

When the British withdrew from the King David Hotel and Government House in Jerusalem, they left the Red Cross flag flying over those buildings. When the last British plane left Tel Aviv airport, no flag was flying there. Of course, naval enforcement of British anti-immigration policies continued uninterrupted until the very last moment on May 14th...

On the ground, semi-low-level bureaucrats who didn't want the years they had spent building up a functioning antiquities authority, or a health service, or whatever, to go to waste, sometimes informally handed over local government agency offices to the Jews in areas where the de facto incoming government was Jewish; and a few military commanders informally handed over certain strategic points (police outposts etc.) to either Arabs or Jews (depending on which side they favored); but the official British policy remained as above. The absurdity of the whole British policy was epitomized by one incident in Jerusalem: "...the police had locked up the last of its gear, valued at ₤1 million, in a warehouse, and wanted to hand the keys over to the U.N. The U.N. refused to accept them. So on his last evening Chief Secretary Gurney went to U.N. headquarters and placed the keys on the steps." -- Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate (2000 ISBN 0316648590), p.517. AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting NMMNG's re-establishment of the text [3] Clearly a non-sense, un-referenced, statement of opinion by Arthur Koestler. An entity cannot declare Independent Sovereignty whilst any part of the territories they were declaring are under the control of any other entity. "1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control. [4] (and BTW 2. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control) ... talknic (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I never added the references I mentioned (adding such references is not something I enjoy doing, or that I'm very good at). My failure in fact had something to do with your arrival on the Wikipedia middle-east article talk pages a few days after my comment above, leading to very lengthy discussions on your abstract hypothetical philosophical speculative metaphysical exegesis of the November 29th, 1947 partition plan -- discussions which conspicuously failed to lead to the significant improvement of even one single article (as I predicted would be the case from the very beginning). Meanwhile, in the first half of 1948, the British refused to formally or officially hand over or transfer anything to either Jews and Arabs. The British claimed to be handing over the Mandate territory to the United Nations Palestine Commission, but in fact they did their best to sabotage the work of the United Nations Palestine Commission through many acts of petty spiteful bureaucratic obstructionism -- and when the crunch time came on May 15, the United Nations Palestine Commission was completely powerless to assert any authority or accomplish anything on the ground in the Mandate (as the British had clearly foreseen, and done their best to bring about). That's what amounts to refusing to hand over sovereignty or authority to anybody (with an added soupçon of après moi le déluge and "let the caged animals fight over the raw meat according to the law of the jungle" attitudes). If you have any constructive suggestions about how to revise the wording to make the situation clearer, then by all means please offer them -- but your original research semi-gibberish about "entities"[sic] etc. really doesn't help anything... AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Noted your long and completely un-sourced opinion ... talknic (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- it's a lot more grounded in the facts of history than your self-involuted navel-gazing original research abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculations about "entities"[sic]. AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "Whatever, dude" WP:CIVIL .... The actual wording of UNGA Res 181 show Koestler's opinion to be 'grounded' in complete nonsense

Please cease your stupid personal affronts and address the points raised with sourced information ... talknic (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It takes some brazenness to take it upon yourself to remind others of "CIVIL", considering your pattern of including gratuitous insults and "personal affronts" in your edit summaries. Meanwhile, everything above refers to the historical facts of what actually happened on the ground in May 1948, so that all the fine rhetoric and good intentions of the never-implemented Arab-rejected November 29th 1947 partition plan proposal really doesn't change anything... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- The words of UNGA Res 181 show the British had no obligation to allow the Commission into the region prior to the termination of the Mandate. Anything that says otherwise is nonsense.

Again, please stop your unwarranted personal comments. Thx ... talknic (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

While I find your personal opinion as interesting as always, there are certain undisputed facts that are discussed by many historians and are familiar to anyone who's actually read a mediocre or above book on the subject. One of them is that the British refused to cooperate with the UNPC, did not allow them to enter the country to demarcate borders or set up any kind of administration and did not agree to pass on in an orderly fashion any functions of government either to the UNPC, the Jews or to the Arabs. Here's another book that discusses this, I hope it meets your approval. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "While I find your personal opinion" JCPA opinion. (and BTW the very meaning of independent[5])"undisputed facts that are discussed by many historians" They are in fact disputed because; they are shown to be complete nonsense by UNGA Res 181.

With the exception of the Karton quarter, the borders were already demarcated in the Partition planPart II the Jewish agency accepted and declared, without registering any reservation, enshrining UNGA res 181 in the Declaration[6].

The Arab representation had until 1 October 1948 to declare if they wishedPLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE 3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

However, with Jewish forces controlling territories slated for the Arab State, "outside the territories of the State of Israel" by May 22nd 1948[7], this was rendered impossible[8].

"One of them is that the British refused to cooperate with the UNPC, did not allow them to enter the country to demarcate borders " Your source, Howard Grief, actually says "before May 1948" and; it does not say anything about demarcating borders. You're omitting key words and adding weasel words to an already fallible source

With the exception of the Karton quarter, the "boundaries" were already demarcated November 29, 1947Parts II & III and;

"PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION - Part I.

Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE:

1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of (not demarcation) the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary." ... From Part II "The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission......"

"...or set up any kind of administration and did not agree to pass on in an orderly fashion any functions of government either to the UNPC, the Jews or to the Arabs" There could be no 'Government' until either party (should they wish or be able to) A) Declared Independent Statehood B) were controlled by a Provisional Govt until; C) a State Government was elected, D) under a constitution (something the Israeli Govt has yet to comply with according to its own Declaration. I.e., there has never been a legally elected Government in Israel)

"4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of the Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission" ...talknic (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If there was a point in that wall of text, I'm missing it. I obviously meant demarcation on the ground, not on a map which they could do in their office at UN headquarters. I'm glad you found a way to bring up once again your favorite documents and interpret them to your liking, though. I can tell this is going to be fun. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - "If there was a point in that wall of text, I'm missing it." Of course, in the main it shows your source to be nonsense.

"I obviously meant demarcation on the ground" By it's own words the Resolution meant exactly what it said "3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. " "establish" what had already been demarcated.

"I'm glad you found a way to bring up once again your favorite documents and interpret them to your liking, " Meanwhile, you attribute non-existent words to your own ill informed source! I've cited in the main, UNGA res 181, the key document to your source's nonsense. The Jewish People's Council Declaration, the final acceptance of UNGA Res 181, in total.

The provisional Government of Israel's statement to the UNSC confirming it controlled areas outside the territory of the State of Israel, which according to the JCPA, prevented the Arab States from declaring effective independence by at least 22nd May 1948, let alone by the 1 October 1948 deadline.

Please address the points raised and please stop your personal affronts ... talknic (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't I just clarify to you what I meant? It wasn't so hard to understand the first time, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained it again. Your tendency to pretend not to understand what people are saying in order to tear down the strawmen you erect is not only only illogical, it also wastes everyone's time. The British did not allow the UNCP to come in and mark the borders on the ground. This is the last time I clarify this for you.

UNGA 181 (a primary document) does not prove or disprove anything regarding how the British transferred power when they terminated the mandate. How could it? It was written almost 6 months before the event. Your personal interpretation of the document, is, as usual, irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Koestler's opinion is illogical. It's contradicted by the text of UNGA res 181 ..."The British did not allow the UNCP to come in" They were not required to until they left. It's in the Resolution. I quoted it, verbatim, which is not illogical nor is it "a waste of everyone's time". It's the very nature of Talk.

"it does not prove or disprove anything regarding how the British transferred power " It proves, with out a doubt what was required and the order in which it was required. What is so hard to understand about "progressively turned over to the Commission" ? I did not interpret the words of UNGA res 181, I quoted them

Again, please cease your personal remarks ... talknic (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you remind me what your qualifications to interpret primary historical documents are? I'm a bit fuzzy on your exact academic background.

What you quoted from 181 does not only not support your claim, it supports mine. They were supposed to progressively turn over power and coordinate their withdraw and did neither. But that's irrelevant because we're not allowed to interpret primary documents here, as I'm sure you know by now. I'm not going to argue with you over the interpretation of a primary document, so feel free to get your last word in so I can ignore you on this as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- What is quoted verbatim, is not interpreted. They were supposed to progressively turn over power and coordinate their withdrawal after May 14th 1948

Again, please cease your personal comments ... talknic (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? It's not interpretation to say it's all supposed to happen "after May 14th 1948" when the resolution says no such thing and in fact that date appears nowhere in the document (and how could it? At that point the British said they will complete their withdraw by August 1st as you can see in the 5th line of the primary source that you're supposedly "quoting verbatim" from)? Could have fooled me.

Oops. Forgot I was going to ignore your nonsense on this issue. Starting now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - A) The wording of UNGA res 181 shows there was no obligation for the British to allow the Commission entry prior to the termination of the Mandate, which happened to be May 14th 1948[9].

B) UNGA Res 181 also shows it was not the purpose of the Commission to "demarcate" borders, but to establish the boundaries per UNGA Res 181.

C) "British said they will complete their withdraw by August 1st as you can see in the 5th line. " You're 'seeing' things. UNGA Res 181 - 5th line says precisely "Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by l August 1948;" I.e., any time between the termination of the mandate[10] and Aug 1st 1948. There is a vast difference between 'plans' and 'will'. I guess that's why things should be quoted verbatim.

D) UNGA res 181 makes no mention of any obligation on the British to become involved in an International war on the termination of the Mandate.

"Forgot I was going to ignore your nonsense on this issue. Starting now. " Please stop your unwarranted personal remarks. Thx ... talknic (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talknic's comment of "20:00, 13 October 2011" -- your focus on pseudo-legalistic interpretation and exegesis of written documents does nothing to change the well-attested historic fact that the British did all they could to sabotage the mission of the United Nations Palestine Commission, and were in fact quite successful in torpedoing the Commission, which found itself to be completely without ability to influence events when May 15th dawned. AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonmoos - Your " well-attested historic fact" is contradicted by the actual wording of UNGA res 181. Which shows no obligation on the British to hand over prior to the termination of the mandate, being May 14th 1948 [11] Nor does UNGA res 181 require the British to become involved in an International war ... talknic (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are several problems with the text. One is that this is largely Koestler's opinion which is not shared by everyone, and so it should not be presented as a mere fact. Another is that the source does not really support the text. The text says "the British refused to hand over territory", but the source says that the British abandoned territory, leading the warring parties to scramble for it. It is similar, but not the same thing. A better source and more accurate report is needed (and spare us Howard Grief, an extremist who is not a third party source). Zero^talk 11:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As shown by UNGA res 181 (above), Both "refused to hand over territory" and "abandoned territory", are complete nonsense ... talknic (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTED: Itsmejudith's complete removal of NMMNG's reinstated text (while under discussion). I agree though, that there is too much cluttered detail for the Lede

BTW why is there another section title British handover, 1948? Can we/I/someone remove it? ... talknic (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened afterwards is not the main topic of the article, ergo removal. By all means tidy the article if you identify duplication or drift away from topic. The underlying problem with this whole series of articles is the constant temptation to retell the same historical events, thus making it impossible to keep an eye on NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant why is there another section title British handover, 1948 in this Talk section, not the Article. Can we/I/someone remove it? ... talknic (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the subheading? AnonMoos sensibly put it in when he re-opened discussion after a long gap. Personally, I often start a new section on a talk page if the discussion is getting stale or sprawling. Making a new start can be sometimes helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They were supposed to hand over the territory in an orderly fashion. They blocked the UNPC, refused a proposal for a transitional regime and then upped and left leaving a vacuum. Do you have a source saying they didn't do it deliberately? I'm open to alternative wording but the issue of how the mandate ended should certainly be in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- They did not block the UNPC. They were suppose to hand over as outlined in UNGA res 181. It was quoted, verbatim, "in that wall of text" you purposefully attempted to ignore. ... talknic (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They were supposed to, but didn't. They didn't allow entry to the UNPC until two weeks before the Mandate was over. Again, your interpretation of primary documents is irrelevant. I'm guessing you weren't even aware of this issue until it was brought up here yesterday. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "They were supposed to" The actual words of UNGA res 181, quoted verbatim, without interpretation, say otherwise.

"I'm guessing you weren't even aware of this issue until it was brought up here yesterday" your guessing is completely irrelevant

Again - Please stop your un-necessary personal comments ... talknic (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your fascination with narrow technicalistic legalisms doesn't change the fact that the British intended to sabotage the mission of the United Nations Palestine Commission, and succeeded in doing so -- and there's no reason why we can't mention this well-attested historic fact in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "the fact that the British intended to sabotage" go ahead. I recommend you verify your opinion with a reputable source which can't be proven to be complete nonesense by the actual wording of UNGA res 181 ... talknic (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The only complete nonsense regarding the actual wording of 181 here is your interpretation of what it says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - There is no interpretation in this section.

"PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION - Part I.

Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE:

1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary." ... From Part II "The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission......"

Statements of fact - It does not say 'to demarcate borders' . It says " the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine". It does not say the British had an obligation to hand over to the Commission before the termination of the Mandate. It does not say the British had an obligation to become involved in an International War. Koestler does not truthfully represent the resolution he refers to. I.e., Koestler is not a reliable source on this particular matter ... talknic (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

@Zero - What do you think about the footnote here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And last paragraph here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this discussion relevant to the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is. It's about the British obstruction of the implementation of the plan. I think it's very relevant and I'm about to restore it with a slight change in wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps there could be a section "Implementation", near the end. I'll see what you put in. On the face of it Koestler seems to be an unusual choice of source, but as I say, I will see. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The two sources I posted above are from Pappe and Karsh. Both agree that the British did not allow the the UNPC to come in and do what it was supposed to do according to the PP, and that they rejected a proposal for a transitional government. I'm open to suggestions about the wording. I see Zero's point that saying they "refused" to hand over administration is interpretive. They did obstruct the implementation the PP had envisioned though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong China in vote section

According to United Nations Security Council (along with the fuzzy recollections of someone who was around 10 in 1971 when the PRC replaced the ROC), at the time the vote was taken in 1947, the Republic of China was on the Security Council, not the People's Republic of China. (I wouldn't be surprised if this error exists in other Wikipedia articles, or at least some probably ambiguously link to just China.) Also, while the accompanying graphic might not be flat out wrong, given that both entities (especially at the time) claim to represent all of China, it seems to at least be misleading, or at a minimum inexact, as there is no indication of which government cast the vote. Shawisland (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

UN document A/AC. 14/SR.31 24 November 1947

I am reverting the deletion that claims the source quoting Husseini stating that at least the Revisionist were honest has been misquoted. I think it is a fair (not great) summary of what appears in the source which I copy and paste: The Zionist programme was a well-calculated policy aimed at the acquisition and domination of the greater part of the Near East and the expansion of its influence over all the Middle East, Mr. Husseini quoted statements made by Dr. Otto Warburg, President of the Tenth Zionist Congress, in August 1911, and Dr. Nahum Sokolov in 1918, in the introduction to his History of Zionism, disclaiming any desire for a Jewish State, but only for a National Home in Palestine, Yet the three spokesmen of the Jewish Agency before the Ad Hoc Committee had all claimed the right to establish a Jewish State. Revisionist Zionists had always been honest in their declarations and had proclaimed of late their determination to continue their straggle for a Jewish State in the original boundaries of Palestine. In 1938, during the debate on the partition scheme of the Royal Commission at the Twentieth Zionist Congress, Mr; Ben Gurion had stated that no Zionist could forego the smallest portion of the land of, Israel, but that the point at issue was which of the two routes would lead more quickly to the common goal. (I resist the temptation to gloss the typos - an age before word processors) Padres Hana (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[108]

Did Liberia really complain of this? The source is quoted as:

Quigley, John B. (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Duke University Press. pp. 37. ISBN 0822310236.:

This is correctly quoted verbatim from Quigley, who notes it as: Bell supra note 43, p.62

Note 43 in Quigley says (in relation to Bell) J. Boyer Bell, Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestinian Underground 1929-1949 (1977)

I propose changing the quoted reference to, as this is from where Quigley attributes the source.:

J. Boyer Bell (1977), Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestinian Underground 1929-1949 p.62 ISBN 1560008709

There does remain the question of where Bell got the original quote from. One reviewer from Amazon said of the book "Unfortunately, Bell uses almost nothing but memoirs and interviews of the key players in this drama to make this book. There are no, or little, primary documents, and very little secondary sources."

Was Israel declaration of independence illegal ?

If the resolution never went to the security council for a vote it means that the resolution is not binding and it has an advisory status. Was Israel's declaration of independence then not illegal ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what that means; the Security Council did vote on it, as you can see for yourself at http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ccf3096aa8f1bb8d852560c2005da665 ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The legal status of the partition resolution has kept the lawyers arguing ever since. You are linking to a SC resolution about admission of Israel to the UN, which is a different later matter. One can at least say that admission to the UN established that Israel was a sovereign state under international law, since recognition by other states is the main criterion for that. Zero^talk 01:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC):::

No the Declaration was not illegal. As Zero has stated.

A Declaration of Independence is a unilateral statement, which when recognized becomes binding on both the declaring entity and those recognizing it. It can be ineffective though if made while the territories being declared are under the control of another entity.

For example the Jewish People's Council had to wait until British occupation (under the Mandate for Palestine) ended."On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. " [12]. Note in the call for recognition "The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time."[13].

Similarly, 1) East Timor's Independent Sovereignty was ineffective while it was occupied by Indonesia and; 2) Palestinian Independence October 1988 was not recognized as it was and still is, under the occupation of Israel ... talknic (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor point, but most countries in the world do recognize Palestine's independence. --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare - Correct I omitted the word 'effective' ... talknic (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Search for original documents: reject/accept the plan

Hello

I don't want to start a flame war whether or not the plan was accepted or rejected. I simply ask for original documents. Indeed the link [14] refers to the rejection of the plan by the Palestine Arab Higher Committee. So far so good. But as far as the acceptance of the plan by the Jewish Agency is concerned there are only two links to books by historian, namely Best, Antony (2004) and Best, Antony (2004). I presume this is in accordance with the rules of wikipedia, however I think it would be better also have a link to an orginal document, comparable to the one of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee. Anybody know about such a link? Oub (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

surely the priority is to use secondary sources? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oub - the Jewish People's Council's final, official acceptance, of UNGA Res 181 was The Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel ... talknic (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The acceptance that mattered would have been conveyed by the Jewish Agency in November/December 1947. The Israeli declaration of independence refers back to the November 29th, 1947 UN partition plan (as being almost the only somewhat "official" document then in existence which could be used as a foundation for sovereign Jewish statehood), but it by no means bound the Jews irrevocably for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, while the Arabs were not bound to obey any of the provisions of UNGA resolution 181 (as you imagine in your abstract hypothetical metaphysical original research speculations). AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Only the final acceptance matters. A State is bound to it's declaration, as are those who recognize it

Again - Please stop your stupid personal comments ... talknic (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I resume: nobody knows where and how to find the original response of the Jewish Agency to the UN proposal? Oub (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes?

It looks like some recent changes were made that may introduce some POV into the article.

For example, all UN assembly resolutions are non-binding. But it has not been the practice to label them as "non-binding" general assembly resolutions. Doing so would imply that there is such a thing as binding general assembly resolution.

The resolution also does not mention the Holocaust. I don't think that this should be introduced when characterizing the contents of the resolution (although discussion of this elsewhere in the article would certainly seem appropriate).

I will try to make some changes to fix thisJsolinsky (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On further reflection, the bit about the holocaust was recently REMOVED not ADDED. Obviously I think this was the right decision. I apologize for my error. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if called for vs. recommended is an issue or not. The resolution clearly calls on the people of Palestine to implement the plan, but merely recommends things to the British government. Since the text is clearly declaratory (full of shalls and so forth), I think that "called for" was the correct language, and intend to restore it. If this was merely a recommendation ("here is what the GA thinks, but feel free to come up with something different") then we ought to include an appropriate reference to that effect. Sources on both sides seem to believe otherwise. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I think the old impasse language is clearly preferable to refused to pass. Negotiations occurred over an extended period of time, and might well have continued. Refused to pass, implies that there was a binary decision to be made (accept or reject), which is not an accurate characterization of the relationship between the GA and SC. Nonetheless, I am removing the recently added "citation" pointing out that the SC does not "implement" GA resolutions. While this may be true in the general case, this specific resolution explicitly calls on the SC to implement its contents in multiple respects.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cutting out before and after

I think we should cut down the background so it starts with the end of WW2 and establishment of the UN. And we should have a good section on the aftermath, but tightly written and following the best sources. We don't have to take the story up to today. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some background about the Mandate is in order, and how the idea of partition came about (Peel commission, etc). I agree there's quite a bit of stuff there that can be removed though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)