Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Changing section on jewish reaction

I made significant edits to the section on Jewish reaction. Drawn out semantic arguments do nobody any good, and anyway the previous section didn't adequately characterize the Jewish reaction. The Jewish reaction to the partition plan was, unambiguously, one of celebration. This is supported by hundreds upon hundreds of sources. Here is a summary of my other edits:

The old section had a comment by Ben Gurion made during UNSCOP deliberations to UNSCOP. If we want to keep this, it should go in the section on UNSCOP deliberations. In my opinion, once placed in context, it no longer meets the threshold for relevance.

This statement was paired with a Jewish Agency comment criticizing the partition on the issue of Jerusalem. I HAVE retained that, but have moved it earlier to maintain chronological order (after UNSCOP plan, but before resolution). I have also added context. The Jewish Agency representative criticized the plan on Jerusalem, but said they could accept the trade off if it got them a state. The previous formulation makes it appear as if the Jewish Agency was in opposition to partition. They supported it, but wanted more, and the existing source makes that quite clear.

The Begin quote does not appear to match up with the Google books version of the citation. Can somebody confirm it? It is otherwise relevant, and the sentiment expressed is surely accurate. It just doesn't seem to match the cite.

There were two sources alleging that it is a myth that Jews accepted the peace plan and arabs rejected them. One of the sources actually provided no specific information. We were just told that there are myths. So I deleted it since the mere existence of myths is not relevant. The text surrounding the other source is relevant, so I have left it. I observe that this source has been criticized as not actually having demonstrated that what it says are myths are actually myths and I suspect that we can do a better job of providing it with better context in our article, but I have left this for somebody else to do. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the changes you made are fine, although I don't think the Jewish Agency reaction should have a header in the proposed division section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a good point. The problem is, that what they said to the United Nations _during_ debate, and what they said after the resolution was approved was very different. Two different reactions occurring at two different reactions should go in two different places. (and both should maintain chronological order).

But if that is the case, WHERE should the reaction to the UNSCOP plan go?

I'm going to make a quick attempt to answer my own question Jsolinsky (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine where it is, just doesn't need a header. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've broken out the activities of the adhoc committee into a separate section (including both the Jewish representations to the committee and its changes). I also added the British and Arab representations to the committee for balance, and further elaborated on the Jewish representations. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The reactions after the resolution was approved were also the reactions after it had become crystal-clear that the Arabs would not agree to the plan, and Begin did not represent Jewish majority opinion at the time. AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is how much weight is Begin's reaction given in reliable sources. I'd have to look around a bit, but from memory I'd have to say not very much. Keep in mind that Irgun and Lehi together had at their biggest a few thousand members between them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)