Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Deleted: The shore plain, previously swampy, was developed into a zone suitable for agriculture by the Jews. Reason: Although there were some areas of swamp that were drained by the Jews (with British help) they were only a small part of the coastal plain. Most of the coastal plain had been heavily cultivated for centuries. -- zero 13:28, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NICE MAPS! BL 21:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Glad you like them. About to rearrange some of the other map references, since these local maps seem to have survived without objection for a while. Jamesday 15:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did a bit more than just maps. Notes on my edits:

• Removed part of a sentence about 1/4 Arab because it conflicted with 1/3 Arab in the preceding sentence.
• Changed Palestinian to Arab in various places. In the context of the partition of Palestine, every resident of the territory is Palestinian, so we need to use Arab instead.
• Dropped "terrorist" from Irgun and Lehi piece when I wikified the links to them and noted that they were fighting the British, which seems to convey the same point in a less contentious way.
• Question: What parts of the land allocated to the Arab state does Israel today claim as "Israel" and what parts does it identify as occupied, autonomous, otherwise not part of Israel proper or otherwise conceivably open to returning to the Arab state area as part of a land return for peace deal comparable to the one which led to peace with Egypt? A (brief!) description of this would be good for the final paragraph, showing how subsequent events developed but we don't want to cover all of the controversy here - just add a little historic context on how the land split has turned out so far. Jamesday 16:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am goin to put in: "The Jewish state was also given access to the Red Sea and the Sea of Galilee (the largest source of fresh water in Palestine); this was a privilage denied to the Arab state." I think there is nothing inaccurate in those statements. bless_sins Feb.1/06

I am not immediately including the following: Although in many cases, areas of Arab majority and Jewish minority were also included in the Jewish state. Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev), were included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration in order to relieve the Jewish Problem But I would like to do so ASAP, in order highlight the basis for partition. Please tell me if there is anything inaccurate about it.User:bless_sinsFeb.1/06

"Jewish settlements" map

I'm removing the "Jewish settlements" map because it is hardly NPOV:

• The yellow area is unlabeled, but when viewed together with the partition map, one get the impression that the yellow area is all populated by Arabs. In fact, much of it (including the entire southern Negev) was virtually unpopulated. Overall, the map creates the impression that Palestine was an Arab land, with a tiny scattered Jewish community. In fact, as the text of the article states, the population was approximately 1/3 Jewish.
• It uses the term "settlements", thus ignoring Jewish population living in the land for centuries in cities like Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias. Also, the term "settlements" has gained certain connotations in recent years, since it's applied to Jewish population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

uriber 11:23, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Uriber's complaint is reasonable. We should be able to find a map that shows the whole population distribution. I'm leaving for a week but if nobody finds something suitable before I return then I'll look for it. --Zero 12:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Jewish population which had been living in the cities for centuries was not very significant in terms of numbers - about 18,000 based on the 1882 census (plus some 10,000 non-native Jews from the circa 1870-1882 Montefiores, Rothschilds and Russian First Aliyah). That's about 3% of the Jewish population at the time of partition. The Zionist settlers plus immigrants during and just after the Nazi period are the really significant factor in terms of Jewish population. What the map shows is that the Jewish population was relatively concentrated and that the borders were drawn to encompass most of that concentrated population in the Jewish state. The border did so, placing 498,000 Jews in the Jewish state and 10,000 in the Arab state. Zero, good luck with finding something which does a better job of showing why the borders were drawn as they were - if you can find anything I'm definitely interested - good and usable maps are tough to find! Jamesday 16:11, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence

I'm having trouble understanding the following line:

Much was owned by Jewish interests (about 7% of the area of Palestine) or the state.

Could someone please rephrase?

Source

The Arab leadership opposed the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). They criticised the amount and quality of land given to Israel. The Jews had been offered 55% percent of the land when they owned 6.5% of it. However, it should be noted that over 70% of the land area (which was mostly desert) was state-owned. The population for the proposed Jewish State would be 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews. The population for the proposed Arab State would be 807,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews. The population for the proposed International Zone would be 105,000 non-Jews and 100,000 Jews.

What are the sources for this? —Simetrical (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"roughly 20% of land was owned by Arab individuals and villages."

There is no source for this. The widely accepted number is about half (0r 47%) of the land owned by arabs.bless_sins

Question of refugees

Someone (I think jayjg) keep on deleting the Palestinian refugees caused by this plan. The person however, doesn't remove, or adds the Jewish refugees. I think both refugees should be linked to. (If anything the Palestinian refugees were the more immediate effect of this war. The Palestinian refugees were created in 1948-9, whereareas the Jewish refugees were created from 1948-67) User:bless_sins

Issue of land ownership.

Although I put in some percentages, I would disagree with the figures presented by Ian. I think we should discuss the issue here.

Personally I think that Jews owned 7% of Palestine, the Arab privately owned 47%, and the rest was public property. But there is very few evidence to back my claims, so I have decided to leave Ian's claims alone. what do you guys think??

Bless sins 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I included the actual figures, rather than the percentages so that people can understand how the latter can be presented in different ways. The references are there if anyone wants to check. Needless to say books published by university presses are better sources than the Jewish Virtual Library. I think we should stick with the figures. For a more detailed discussion see here --Ian Pitchford 09:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that your sources are better than the Jewish Virtual Library. At this time, I am not objecting to your sources or your figures. But why exaclty should we not put in actual percentages? PErhaps in a different paragraph? 172.171.132.201 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If the percentages are available in a good publication we can cite then it would be fine to include them. If we just calculate the percentages and then put them in the article it will look as though they are sourced to the two publications mentioned when in fact both only give raw figures I've included. --Ian Pitchford 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored all opinions. I'd like to see exactly what Fischbach says on the subject; it appears from Ian's presentation that Fischbach is stating that, for example, all miri lands (and perhaps matruk and mawat lands) were actually "owned" by private Arab owners. As I'm sure Ian knows, absolute ownership of miri lands (and the others) rested with the State. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see better sources than web sites (which are really, for the most part, no better than self-published books), especially as the figures are not consistent with those from the JNF and the Custodian of Absentee Property, but this is something we can work on. A more serious problem is that the article claims falsely that the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, which of course they didn't. They announced acceptance (document in the UN archive), while collaborating with Transjordan in the hope of preventing the creation of an Arab state. --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the use of land, can you say exactly how Fischbach arrives at his figures, or quote him? How does he treat issues like miri land? Regarding the Jewish Agency, I'm not really up on that history, who says that they were secretly collaborating with Transjordan? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the issue of websites, in some ways you're correct, though different websites have different degrees of reliability. However, when someone like Mitchell Bard references a specific page in a book by Aumann for his figures, that's hardly any different that, well, Ian Pitchford referencing a specific page in a book by Fischbach for his figures. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is extremely irrelevant: "According to Mitchell Bard (citing Moshe Aumann, "Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 29, quoting p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine), in terms of the land that would eventually become Israel, 9% of the land was owned by Jews, 3% by Arabs who became citizens of Israel, and 18% by Arabs who left the country."

The section is termed "The Division". Israel would not be formed until mor than a year later. Also the borders of the would be Israel would have nothing to do with the UN Plan, and more with Israeli military victories. Also, in 1948, few people predicted that Palestinians would be leaving thier homes.

Bless sins 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should create a new article in which various claims of land ownership are discussed.

Bless sins 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was wrong to remove well refenced numbers. I don't see how these numbers are "extremely irrelevant", just the opposite. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rather absurd to remove well-referenced sections on land ownership, simply because they contradict your view. What is irrelevant is your rationale for removing the information; what on earth would peoples predictions of Palestinians leaving their homes have to do with anything? If you want to remove all land ownership information, that is another issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In my previous post, I highlighted the part that says in terms of the land that would eventually become Israel.

Why are the borders set by the 1949 armistice agreements of any relevence here?? Esp. in the divison section?? The 1949 borders and the UN partition plan (the division) borders are totally different. they have nothing to do with each other. Your comments would be well suited in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war section, but not here. Bless sins 19:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The information clearly shows a vastly different view of how much land Arabs owned, and the overlap between the two areas is rather obvious. If we're going to have competing claims of land ownership, then the gamut of views must be represented. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that differing views should be presented. But once again: this is not relevent. This talks about the land ownerhsip within the 1949 armistice lines. What do the armistice lines ("what eventually became Israel"), have to do with UN partition plan?

If you can find figures that provide a contrary point of view, but talk specifically of the 1947 UN plan, then you are more than welcome to post them here.

Bless sins 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that a cited source which shows wildly different land ownership than is claimed by other sources is "irrelevant"? Could it possibly have to do with the fact that this particular source insists that Arabs did not own nearly as much land as the source you preferred? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is because the land onwership this refers to is that of "what eventually became Israel". The borders of israel have nothing do with the UN partition Plan. I have said that several times. Comparing the statistics you back with the U.N is like comparing apples with oranges. Seriously. Pls. respond to this point, and don't try to invent possible reasons for my opposition.

You are more than welcome to post well-sourced statistics that talk of the UN partition plan and NOT of soemthing else. I don't care what those statistics are. I don't care if they say Arabs owned 0% of the land. Bless sins 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe you insist that land included under the 1947 Partition plan had nothing to do with the 1949 Armistice lines; in fact, they include it completely. The information is entirely relevant, and your arguments against it are specious. Also, please do not remove requests for citation; if you have evidence that Arabs made this argument at the time, then bring it forward. Personally I strongly doubt they did; rather, it seems like an argument that Arabs are making today. Jayjg ^(talk)

Jayjg, I'm running out of patience. Please go to 1949 Armistice Agreements for the map that shows the LARGE differences in the Jewish state of 1947 partition plan, and that of 1949 armistice agreements. Your numbers will be well suited in some other article, but not this one.

My second argument is that your figures are (mis)placed in the section "the Division". This talks of what was given to the Arab state, and what was given to Jewish state; hence the basis (and the context) in which the territory was divided. What do Palestinians leaving their homes, and 1949 Armistice lines (both of which happened later on) have to do with the basis or context of the 1947 division???172.138.114.72 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're running out of patience. However, given that the source provided states that Arabs who left what eventually became Israel only owned 18% of the land, and given that the 1949 armistice lines were actually larger than the 1947 plan, and had a much lower percentage of Jewish ownership, this fact is highly significant. The numbers as presented are misleadning. Also, regarding the 55%/6.5% claim, I still need a proper reference that Arabs made that argument back then. Sure, you can find an article with some guy making that argument today, but the article claims that Arabs made the article back then. Who were these Arabs, and where and when did they make that argument? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SO, finally you admit that 1947 Partition Plan HAD NOTHING TO DO with what eventually became Israel. Secondly, the UN partition plan was of British mandate of Palestine, not just of Israel. By presenting facts only about 'what eventually became Israel', you are ignoring the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are no doubt crucial parts of Palestine. Bless sins 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense; the 1947 Partition plan had a great deal to what eventually became Israel; Israel encompassed all of it, plus other territory. More importantly, have you read the opening sentence of that entire section? It says "According to Michael Fishbach, of the land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements etc." In other words, all of the figures there are in relation to the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and none of them are specific to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. If you want to remove all the numbers, you can argue for that, but I don't see any rational justification for arguing for some 1949 numbers but not others. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point. Before I make my counter argument, I would like Ian Pitchford to clarify what "of the land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements..." means. It could mean whole of the mandate of Palestine, (in which case the quote would be entirely relevent), or it could mean something else.Bless sins 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the source myself, it was actually that JNF thing again, which was written after the Agreements. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pls. clarify "it was actually that JNF thing again". If indeed this info. is post 1947, then it needs to be atleast reworded (if not placed somewhere else). We want to know, what the U.N. was thinking when it divided Palestine.Bless sins 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the argument of Arabs pointing out that Jews only owned 6.5% of the land: Take a look at that article once more[1] Paragraph one: "To clarify the foundational reasons behind the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan, there are four reasons deserving of discussion .." Paragraph seven: the Arab world perceived that the UN were not competent..., perceived is in past tense Other pargraphs are similarly in past tense. Also, we should add some arguments made by this article.

It's a dubious source which itself quotes no other sources; in other words, a modern argument that has been anachronistically foisted on previous generations. Please provide sources which actually enumerate the arguments that were made back then, not arguments that, in hind-sight, modern-day activists wish they had made. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is a "dubious" source. Secondly, I have already explained (see above), how the article claims that the arguments were made 'back-then'. Thridly, the article does refer to othr sources used (scroll down to the bottom and there is a bibliography).Bless sins 09:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BS, I'm not talking about my personal likes or dislikes, I'm talking about reliable sources. The article is not from a reliable source, nor does it give any real indication as to who made this argument and when - the bibliography is entirely non-specific. Please find a source which actually does these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why exaclty the article not from a reliable source?? The article clearly says that "foundational reasons behind thePalestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan", and the rejection, anyhow was made 50 years ago and NOT TODAY. The Plan is extinct today, there is no more discussion on it, by neither the Israelis nor the PAlestinians. Why will PAlestinians reject something that is not tlaked about today, and that even Israel disagreed on (by occupying more than what it was assigned).Bless sins 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the UN figures now and I think I can work out where the 18% figure comes from. I don't know whether I'll have any time soon to add the material to the article. --Ian Pitchford 09:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea at all? It might help solve some problems. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find where the 21% figure (note that the Arabs wouldn't be expelled until after the plan) comes from, and how it relates to the UN partition(it's ALL about relvency) then that would be great.Bless sins 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben Gurion and the New Historians text

Bless sins keeps trying to insert the following text:

this view is supported by statements from David Ben Gurion and other leaders recently discovered by Israel's New Historians and other independent scholars[2]

The link itself is to a very small Christian pro-Palestinian advocacy site affiliated with Sabeel. The article in question appears to possibly be a partial reprint of what may be an August 2002 letter to the editor by a William James Martin in International Socialist Review; it's hard to tell exactly what it is, and the end of it may be cut off. The alleged quotes are of questionable relevance; they purport to be from a letter from Ben Gurion to his son in 1937, over a decade before partition, and are obviously edited by the author, since they are filled with ellipses. The letter itself is only supposed to be from Ben Gurion, not "other leaders", and we have no idea who "discovered" it. The entire thing from start to finish is one of the most dubious uses of "sources" it has been my misfortune to witness on Wikipedia. Are there any more questions as to why this source is not appropriate? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can say the same about the Jewish Virtual Library, which is HUGELY biased. Secondly don't criticize a site for being Christian, nor for bieng pro-Palestinian. Thirdly, just because the letter is to Ben Gurion's son, doesn't mean Ben-Gurion didn't say (or write) it. Fourthly, ellipses are common practice to shorten things up, there is nothing "questionable" about them. Also, the Wiki article on Benny Morris supports this claim. Benny Morris, an Israeli New Historian, says (whether rightfully or wrong fully):

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer (of Arabs out of Israel)..."

This is a confirmation of what Ben Gurion had already said back in 1937. Bless sins 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another evidence that Ben-Gurion, wished to expand. Go to [3]

Read the fourth and the fifth paragrpahs. As you will be able to see, the site is none other than Haaretz.212.138.47.29 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the sources were good, what on earth is the relevance? Please read what the section is about; it's about alleged Arab fears of Zionist expansionism. How could what the New Historians might say in the 1980s and 1990s possibly be relevant to what Arabs were using as reasons to reject the 1947 Partition plan back in 1947? Did the Arab leaders have a time machine, which took them into the future, where they read the books of the New Historians, and then zipped back to 1947 to tell their brethren "Don't trust the plan, in the future Benny Morris will find evidence that the Zionists have expansionist plans!"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me argue with you with your own argument: If it is wrong to quote later events, why is it right to quote the fact that Palestinians were expelled from their homes? Esp. in the "division" section? Did the UNSCOP, which divided Palestine, use a time-machine to find out that Palestinians would suffer such a fate? Did they know anything about Israel's would-be borders in 1949 (i'm talking of the land ownership issue)? If, not why talk about what Israel eventually became, esp. in the section that talks specifically about the division of Palestine. Did the UN divide Palestine on the basis of what Israel would become later on?87.109.20.129 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm waiting for a response. Bless sins 12:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm still waiting.Bless sins 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the response is in the section below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see where he talks about the land ownership issues. 172.131.17.199 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand your question, or know who you are. In fact, from now on, if you don't login and sign your posts, I won't be answering. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(sigh), THis is what you said:"Please read what the section is about; it's about alleged Arab fears of Zionist expansionism. How could what the New Historians might say in the 1980s and 1990s possibly be relevant to what Arabs were using as reasons to reject the 1947 Partition plan back in 1947? Did the Arab leaders have a time machine, which took them into the future, where they read the books of the New Historians, and then zipped back to 1947 to tell their brethren "Don't trust the plan, in the future Benny Morris will find evidence that the Zionists have expansionist plans!"? "

And I repsonded: "Let me argue with you with your own argument: If it is wrong to quote later events, why is it right to quote the fact that Palestinians were expelled from their homes? Esp. in the "division" section? Did the UNSCOP, which divided Palestine, use a time-machine to find out that Palestinians would suffer such a fate? Did they know anything about Israel's would-be borders in 1949 (i'm talking of the land ownership issue)? If, not why talk about what Israel eventually became, esp. in the section that talks specifically about the division of Palestine. Did the UN divide Palestine on the basis of what Israel would become later on"

You call my arguments irrelevent yet your aargument about 1949 armistice lines are themselves irrelevent. Pls. don't hold my not signing in against me, i don't think its crime to do so. Bless sins 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble understanding what you're talking about. What section talks about "the fact that Palestinians were expelled from their home"? And how would that relate to a failure to properly cite a claim that Arabs feared additional Jewish expansion? If they feared it, then provide a proper citation; what's so hard about that? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just scroll to the top of this section (that you created) and begin reading down. SInce you wrote a lot of it, it should be a quick read. I gave a response on 23:04, 17 March 2006, to whcih you never responded back. It's about the original land ownership issue. Pls. respond to this.Bless sins 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've lost track of what this is about, and it shouldn't be this complicated. Bless sins, please read our policies about sources (WP:NOR and WP:V) and stick to them. This means providing a reliable source for your edits and sticking very closely to what the source says without introducing your own spin. Then there will be fewer arguments, and possibly none. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not able to find any text about Palestinians being expelled, nor understand what the current issue is. Bless sins, is there any specific text you want to add, or delete, or modify? If so, what is it, and why do you want to do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am questioning the relevency of the info. you added some time ago regarding the land ownership of Palestine. This questioning is in the light of the "time-machine" arguments you made on 18:33, 16 March 2006 (just scroll up a bit). This about PAlestinians "leaving" thier homes (sorry for not expressing this in more NPOV terms before). This is NOT about reliable sources, rather about the relevency of the info you have added.Bless sins 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the various pieces of information about land ownership in 1949? We've already talked about this before; all the figures are from 1949, as you agreed, so they are all equally relevant. Do you want to remove them all? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the figures talk about the 1949 conditions. The mideast web makes no mention of 1949, and infact on another page [4], it refers to "Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946". Avneri also talks of the time of 1947 or prior to that. Michael Fishbach mentions "that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements". This is unclear as the West Bank and Gaza Strip could also be included. If he means only Israel, then indeed it is irrelevent (as the UN did not have a "time machine" that they could use to get to 1949). Now if you don't consider it "edit-war recruiting", I would like to ask Ian Pitchford to clear up this quote by perhaps providing us with the context. The other source that refers to 1949 Armisitice agreements is JVLibrary, which the argument is about.Bless sins 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what the context is for that quote. Fishbach, in the footnote to that page, refers to the book The Jewish National Fund by Lehn and Davis, which in turn, has a footnote which apparently states this. It is an allegation made about what was then Israel, not the West Bank or Gaza strip. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

IF it is indeed only about ISrael of 1949 (and not of 1947), then it would be as irrelevent as JVLibrary stats. I created the land ownership article to move these facts to a place where they will be appropriate. This article talks about the 1947 UN Plan and the facts are located in "The Division" section. Like you said the UN did not have a time machine and so what would happen in 1949 was not in any way available to them. Any facts talking about stats available in 1947 or prior to that should most definetly be included.Bless sins 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Source request

We need a reliable source, please, for: "Arabs also feared that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone for further advancement." This [5] doesn't look like a good source, and it's anyway not clear what it's saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can provide for you at least ten different sources if I wish. Please refere to the section above, as there is a well known Israeli source there - Haaretz. However, source doesn't seem to be the prob, as Jayjg himself said; it is the relevency. Bless sins 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is reliable sources for the claim that Arabs feared that would happen. Please provide them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there is this source. It clearly says: "The strategic imperatives since 1936 of David Ben-Gurion were relevant to influencing the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 partition."

If you object to Ben-Gurion's intention to occupy all of Palestine, and drive the indegenous Arab pop. out -- then in the section above there is a link to the Haa'retz article.172.147.110.214 12:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A paper written by a law student on a POV website? Please find a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Talking of POV, isn't JEwish Virtual Library one??172.152.57.124 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The law student clearly uses facts that are evident in Israeli sources.172.152.57.124 11:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We need a scholarly source who shows that the "Arabs also feared that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone for further advancement"; not a letter from Ben-Gurion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC) It is a source about the Arabs that you need. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What is un-"scholarly" about this article?? The author, Jason D. Söderblom, is an Analyst with the Terrorism Intelligence Centre of Australia. He is also a Staff Member and Student at the Faculty of Law, Australian National University. I don't know why you are criticizing someone for trying to study something. Sure he is a student, but that's not the only qualification he has. HE has written plenty of articles published in good sources - a simple google search will show you that.Bless sins 12:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes an analyst from the "Terrorism Intelligence Centre" a good source on Israeli history? Also, the confirmation stuff you added was the same old nonsense, a doctored alleged quote from an alleged letter to the editor on another site which is not a reliable source. Finally, the initial sentence was also unsourced. Please try to use proper sources which actually prove what you say. On the positive side, I'm glad to see you are logging in again. On the negative side, it's disappointing that you did so in order to recuit people to edit-war for you, while grossly mischaracterizing the nature of the dispute.[6] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously miscommunication between us. That's why I asked Siddiqui (who has had more experience) to help me communicate my ideas to you. (You seem to think that I want to "recruit" people).

So, back to the topic. LEt's take this real slow, one step at a time. First of all, do you agree that David Ben Gurion intended to expand the Jewish State and/or drive the Arabs out of their homes? (I think this seems to be the major problem). IF you say yes, then we can move on to the next step (whether the Arabs were aware of this).172.136.222.169 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen Siddiqui has a great deal of experience at inserting unsourced original research written from a Palesinian POV, then edit-warring to keep it in articles. Since that's exactly what you've been doing here, it's not surprising that you've attempted to recruit him. Also, please login, it's a courtesy so people know who they're talking to. I've responded to the rest below. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins, your paragraph uses two sources, Ben-Gurion as a primary source [7] and Jason D. Soderblom, sometimes written Söderblom, as a secondary one, [8] for the sentence: "Arabs also feared that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone for further advancement ..." Ben-Gurion was not an Arab and did not fear that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone, nor does he mention Arab fears (that I could see from the source material), so he isn't a good primary source. Jason Soderblom cites himself as being with the Australian National University. A search through their staff list [9] shows there is a Mr. Jason Soderblom (note: Mr, not PhD) with the National Judicial College of Australia [10], which is not part of the law school, and which seems to provide training to people involved in judicial administration, which has nothing to do with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Soderblom also self-describes on various websites as the "Director of the World-ICE Group and an Analyst for the Terrorism Intelligence Centre (TIC) in Canberra, Australia." A Google search for the "World-ICE Group" returns only seven unique hits. [11] It stands for "World International Community Experts," [12] and appears to be a website run by Soderblom himself. All the articles listed seem to have been written by him, but not all published anywhere, so I'd say this looks like his personal website. Please correct me if I've overlooked something about it. As for his position as "analyst" with the "Terrorism Intelligence Centre (TIC) in Canberra," there's something that the Australian government calls its counter-terrorism intelligence center in Canberra, which is formally called the National Threat Assessment Centre (NTAC) [13] but that doesn't seem to be what Soderblom is referring to. There are a few other references to a Terrorism Intelligence Centre in Canberra, but the other one seems to be run by one man, also someone associated with the Australian National University [14] (pdf). No mention of Soderblom there that I could find, so I'd say if he is an "analyst," he's probably someone who has an article on the "Centre's" website, not in and of itself something that would make him a reliable source for Wikipedia. An Amazon search for publications by Jason Soderblom or Söderblom, with and without the D, returns nothing.

If his article were in a peer-reviewed or otherwise mainstream publication, it wouldn't matter who he was, but as it's in the Palestine Monitor, and as he uses intemperate, unscholarly language — "Ben-Gurion consistently lacked the willingness to negotiate in good faith with the Arabs of the mandate Palestine, a gross and unconscionable act ..." [15] — my opinion is we have no reason to believe that Soderblom is a reliable and suitably qualified source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said (though after your post), we need to take this one step at a time: first, is there agreement that Ben-Gurion considered a Jewish state as a stepping stone for further advancement? IF yes, then I'll try to hunt down better sources for the arab part. (I need some time to that) Bless sins 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear if Ben Gurion believed that; there's certainly no reliable source for it. More important, it's not relevant. The sentence in question is about Arab views, not about Ben Gurion's views. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let us first agree upon whether or not Ben-Gurion wished to expand further or not. After we agree, I will try to prove the relevence with some "reliable" sources. There is no use trying to prove the relvence of a statement, when we are not sure whether the statement is true.Bless sins 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins, you've misunderstood our policies. We publish what reliable sources publish. We don't investigate whether their claims are true. So if Professor Very Esteemed, the head of mid-east history at Oxford University, publishes in a reliable journal that the Arabs feared the Jews signalled the start of a Martian invasion, that's what we publish. See WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SOrry, for the deletions, there were a mistake. Obviously every bit of info. in this article (or other ones) isn't from a Dr. "Very Esteemed" from some prestiguous university. What sort of sources are you looking for?? Palestine Monitor seems to be criticised but not Jewish Virtual Library, though both are equally POV.

As I said above, from now on, if you don't login and sign your posts, I won't be answering. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Error in Map: 1947 UN-partition Plan

In 1947 Jordan was called Transjordan. Could someone pls correct this error. I do not know how to.--84.153.126.64 08:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this would be to find another, better, map. But then again should we correct this "error"? This map is from a reliable source and so I don't see a problem with it.Bless sins 10:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Which "reliable" source are you referring to? 2. We all know that in 1947 today's Jordan was called Transjordan.--84.153.84.157 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this official UN map of the partition plan dated 1946 says "Jordan, formerly Transjordan". --Zero^talk 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The version of the article is biased

What source is used ? Not known. It's a badly written article. There are no citations for anything. The "creation of the plan" section is amateurish. The intro of the section is biased against Jews making it makes it seems like Israel could have created anywhere else and there's no justification in creating it in Palestine, instead of showing how nobody thought at the time that the land could be given to any other People, that the only People recognised for a national claim in the area was the Jews who are the only ones who showed loyalty to Israel as an entity throughout the years. The phrasing is malicious and one sided. A better version is to show how the area was always regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people, how Arab leaders at the time recognised this , how the original area of Israel is on both sides of the river and how Palestine was cut in order to appease Abdallah. There's no justication either in rationalising the Jewish "influx" because of antisemitism only, as there was always aliyah to Israel, as well as not talking about the immigration of the arabic population and stating hard demographic facts. Also, this intro actually suggests that the British were very happy to give the Jews a state but the Jews rejected it and started battling British - absolutely ludricous. A serious discussion is needed about the White Paper too. Putting tag. Amoruso 11:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

interesting, I found out the intro is actually a new addition based on supposedly some article - [16] Amoruso 11:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

=========================================

The article should mention the fact that the colonial process of conquest used by Great Britain and the League of Nations to establish the Jewish homeland in Palestine is no longer permitted under international law. The United States itself took a leading role in organizing the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, and in promoting the Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition. see also: The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/c_coloni.htm and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) Definition of Aggression http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/3314.htm

The claim that there was universal recognition of an exclusive Jewish national right to the land of Palestine is incorrect. The King-Crane Commission Report, of 1919 noted: "the intense opposition of the Arabs and the Christians to the Zionist Program." and recommended "serious modification of the extreme Zionist program for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish State." The commission stated:

"[A] national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine' see: http://www.gwpda.org/1918p/kncr.htm

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION, Presented to Parliament in JUNE, 1922 is part of the UN Palestine League of Nations Document Archive. The delegation noted:

"the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone."

A review of the 1922 Churchill White Paper indicates that the British Colonial Office didn't hold a favorable view of the proposed Jewish state either. Years later the Anglo-America Committee of Inquiry heard from both Jewish and Arab groups who rejected the Zionist program. see the Churchill White Paper: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1922.htm

The Report of The Anglo-America Committee of Inquiry http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angch06.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angch05.htm

In 1945 both House of Congress proposed bills endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The American Council for Judaism and The American Jewish Committee presented a written memorandum recommending deferment of "the controversial question of the Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine" and the bills were tabled. see: THE AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK, Volume 46 pages 206-208 http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/Vol_46__1944_1945.pdf

The Hague Convention went into effect in 1910. It precluded the occupying colonial powers from confiscating private property or real estate, and required them to enforce the existing laws of the land, absent negotiated armistice and peace treaty agreements. see: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm#art43 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm#art46

That only left "so-called" state and waste lands. The British appointed a High Commissioner (Sir Herbert Samuel) who had previously served as an advisor to the Zionist Agency. He began the process of creating a cadastral map and started designating many parcels of "waste" or "state land". That survey of Palestine was never actually completed. see: The Survey of Palestine Under the British Mandate, 1920-1948, Dr. Dov Gavish http://www.pef.org.uk/Pages/Gavish.htm

Samuel enacted new land legislation that took effect before Great Britain had any legal standing as the League of Nations Mandatory power. The government of Turkey had rejected the Allied terms contained in The Treaty of Sèvres. It became a legal nullity, but it wasn't replaced, until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923. By then, the 1922 British White paper had already been published. It explained that the British government never had any intention of establishing a Jewish state in Palistine. Any "state lands" would have necessarily reverted to the proposed Palestinian state after a brief period of tutelege under the League of Nations.

The article disingenuously cites Mark Twain's "Innocents Abroad" as if it were a peer reviewed research paper. Twain could have written about mud, adobe, or sod houses and malaria without ever leaving home. Neither Israel nor the United States controlled malaria until the 1960s and sod homes were used in the American Great Plains until the 1940s. "Innocents Abroad" was a literary satire. Twain held some of the usual colonialist and orientalist assumptions of the day, but he openly mocked Christian and Jewish claims to Arab lands in Palestine. see: Tom Sawyer Abroad Chapter 1

Only 15-16 percent of the land in modern Israel is arable or otherwise suitable for farming. see the CIA factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

The Hope Simpson Royal Commission Report of 1930 extolled the virtue of draining Lake Hulah, the surrounding swamps and marshes:

'At the time of the Occupation Palestine was a country saturated with malaria. Since that time much good work has been done, not only by agencies of the country, but also with the help of outside scientific enquirers. The Rockefeller Foundation, the League of Nations, the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee have all rendered invaluable assistance in investigation, in research and in advice. Very much has been done in the drainage of swamps and marshes, in great part by Jewish agency and in great part by the Government. Much, however, still remains to be done. Huleh is a plague spot. The malaria of that part of Palestine will not be finally overcome until the Huleh Lake is drained and there is a free flow of water out of the Basin into the Jordan River. There are wide areas in the neighbourhood of Acre where drainage is necessary. There are still swampy areas in the Maritime Plain.'

In 1958 the UN Nations Resolutions 92 and 93 condemned Israel for violating the Syrian-Israeli DMZ to drain Lake Huleh. The land obtained by this process eventually proved to be unsuitable for farming: see "Israel floods drained swamp to bring in tourists", New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13818691.400-israel-floods-drained-swamp-to-bring-in-tourists.html

And the University of Arizona study conducted for the International Arid Lands Consortium (IALC):

"In the late 1950s Lake Hula and its surrounding swamps, located in the northern part of Israel, were drained by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) giving over most of the area to agriculture. This was a Zionist action aimed at sanitizing the malaria-infestation in the Hula valley and turn the area over into suitable land for agriculture.... ...The interference in the natural system of the Hula valley caused a series of physical and biogeochemical irreversible problems: the peat soils decomposed and settled leading to deterioration of the soil quality and narrowing by 10-20 % the land suitable for cultivation; peat fires accelerated causing dust storms; poisonous weeds spread out; field mice multiplied; indigenous fauna and flora disappeared; water bird population declined; and the quality of water in Lake Kinneret has been impaired.

By the end of the 1980's it became evident that a rapid action of restoration is essential.

http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to600/pap596/p596.htm

During the 19th century the Holy Land was practically overrun with American and British tourists, scholars, evangelists, writers, visiting government officials, and artists. Many saw America as a New Israel, a modern nation chosen to do God's work on Earth. They produced a variety of inspirational art and literature about their travels in the "original promised land". Twain's travelogue aimed to mock their romantic ideas, while pointing out the incongruity of their exalted notions of humble Palestine in contrast to his eyewitness description of plague ridden reality on the ground. see: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6725.html

In fact, Twain frequently took considerable license, since he described empty landscapes where towns like Ramallah had stood since the 16th century. Many towns and villages he overlooked had already been described in detail by the other literature of the day, such as the accounts of the punitive expedition of Ibrahim Pasha in the 1840s, or the atlas prepared by Pierre Jacotin during Napolean's campaigns. There were even some U.S. Navy expeditions to map the Jordan river see for example: Commission des sciences et arts d'Egypte; Panckoucke, C. L. F. (Charles Louis Fleury), 1780-1844 http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps1020117-25538.html and Narrative of the United States' Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea by W. F. Lynch, U.S.N., Commander of the Expedition 1849 http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/deadsea.htm

Jewish citrus growing began to develop in 1855, when Sir Moses Montefiore purchased an Arab orchard near Mikveh Israel, hoping to create jobs for yishuv hayashan, the Jews living in the country at the time. The plantation farming techniques employed during the first Aliyah were not very successful. During that period the Jewish community relied heavily on Arab labor and know how. According to Haaretz: 'In the late 1990s, another crisis hit the industry, as a result of three years of drought, which led to a cutback of about 50 percent in the water quotas to farmers. "The citrus growers had two options: to use half the amount of water, or to give up half the area of the orchard. Most chose the second option' see: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=478418

It is extremely doubtful that the Jewish authorities ever accepted the UN plan of partition, since they didn't respected the proposed International Zone. There have been numerous disclosures regarding the understanding that existed between the Jewish Agency and the Kingdom of Transjordan. Both the Agency and the King wanted to prevent the establishment of the new independent Arab state. They conspired together to arrange for the Arab Legion occupy the Arab portion of the UN partition. See for example:

Israel and the Arab Coalition in 1948, Avi Shlaim http://www.fathom.com/course/72810001/index.html

Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Rafael's report on Moshe Sharett's discussions of the understanding during a meeting with US Secretary of State George C. Marshall on 12 May 1948 in 'Fifty Years' at the Liddel Hart Military Center. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/lhcma/cats/fiftyyears/xf30-01-.shtml

'The Foreign Relalions of the United States 1948, Vol. V: The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Part 11. Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Office, a review and summary are available in PRINCIPLE AND EXPEDIENCY:THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND PALESTINE, 1948 JUSTUS D. DOENECKE Department of Hitory, New College of the University of South Florida. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/2_4/2_4_6.pdf

The Provisional Government of Israel repeatedly refused to recognize the right of the UN or its Truce Commission to designate Jerusalem as a neutral zone. See for example: TEXT OF CABLEGRAM FROM JOHN J. MACDONALD,CHAIRMAN OF THE PALESTINE TRUCE COMMISSION

The Haganah also planned to setup an airfield on Arab land in the neutral Jerusalem sector:

[L]earn that you plan an attack on Deir Yassin... ...I wish to point out that the capture of Deir Yassin and its holding are one stage in our general plan. If you are unable to do so I warn you against blowing up the village which will result in its inhabitants abandoning it and its ruins and deserted houses being occupied by foreign forces....Furthermore, if foreign forces took over, this would upset our general plan for establishing an airfield. see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html

68.102.232.228 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)