Jump to content

Talk:Churchill White Paper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

the article is lock please add the interwiki [[yi:ערשטער ווייסער בוך]]

Extract from the Balfour Declaration Article

[edit]

I removed an outdated extract from the Balfour Declaration Article. It incorrectly stated that Transjordan was removed from the territory promised to Palestine under the Balfour Declaration, and etc.

That's certainly what the Jewish Agency for Palestine spokesmen claimed at the time, but it was never factual. The text of the declaration and subsequent treaties didn't prescribe or promise any boundaries, other than those that might suit the British and French. The Zionist Commission to the Paris Peace Conference never asked for any land near, or east of the Hedjaz Railway in the OETA administered territory.

The text of these agreements are no longer secret. Most of them are quoted or linked to the respective articles here on Wikipedia. The Vilayet of Ma'an and Aqaba was annexed to Transjordan from the Kingdom of Hedjaz AFTER it fell to Ibn Saud.

The Occupied Enemy Territory which later became Syria Mesopotamia, and Palestine were mentioned in Section VII, Aticles 94-97 of the Treaty of Sevres, the short-lived Kingdom of Hedjaz is mentioned separately in Section VIII, articles 98-100. http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Section_I%2C_Articles_1_-_260

harlan (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>>> The map which shows the Jewish state extending over the Jordan river to the Hejaz railway was agreed by Weizmann and King Feisal (with the assistance of T.E.Lawrence) in the 1919 Paris agreement. Weizmann re-itterated the validity of the agreement to the UN in 1947. This agreement was the first instrument of international law and under estoppels still overrides all subsequent instruments. >>>

Well, after Jabotinsky persuaded Weizmann that the land beyond the Jordan was inessential to Zionism, both of them signed their assent to the Churchill White Paper as members of the Zionist Executive. So any such claim, quite tenuous to start with, became utterly vacuous.John Z (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Who?

[edit]

This article does not mention (or link to) who 'Churchill' is. Except from when the 'Churchill White Paper' is mentioned in the first sentence, Churchill is not introduced until towards the middle of the article. It would be good to add an introductory sentence clarifying that the report originated from Winston Churchill (I assume) and to link to his profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.142.124 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Churchill White Paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key provisions Section

[edit]

As it stands now, this section is poor. Several parts of the WP have been cherry picked and quoted directly without any secondary citations in support. This is an abuse of primary source material. I will delete most of this and replace it with secondary source commentary on the WP provisions. If I miss out someone's favorite secondary source opinion, feel free to add it in somewhere.Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unclear references

[edit]

"The "British Policy in Palestine" (enclosure in No.5 of the white paper) was accepted by the Zionist Organization (No.7) and rejected by the Palestinians (No.6)". — What are these "enclosure"s? I don't see any mention of them in the given source. Zerotalk 13:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK, maybe you have a better way to handle this, this particular white paper is referred to as a correspondence and presented as a series of numbered letters, 9 of them altogether, and the numbers refer to the number of the relevant letter so the actual policy statement, called "British Policy in Palestine" is an enclosure (called Enclosure in No 5) to letter No 5. However I could not find a secondary source that details the way the white paper is set out so I just put the number of the relevant letter into the text for those people who want to read it.I could extract the details into some sort of table perhaps?Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it, but I'm not satisfied. The source given (Kedourie and Haim) refers to this as one document, not as a set of letters, and that is how I always see it referred to. Both links at the bottom of the page go to one statement that is labeled the white paper. It is one of the series of letters/statements published as Cmd. 1700, but that doesn't make the whole series into the white paper. I can show multiple sources that refer by "CWP" only to the statement of June 3. So I disagree with the claim at the head of the page that "Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation" is the official name of the CWP. I believe that Cmd 1700 is about the WP, but isn't as a whole the WP. Zerotalk 19:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note how Kedourie and Haim write (p21): "A ‘Statement of British Policy in Palestine’ was presented to the Zionist Organisation and to the Palestine Arab Delegation. Subsequently known as the ‘Churchill White Paper’..." Yes, that the meaning of CWP that I've seen dozens of times. Zerotalk 19:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having written all that, and finding further confirmation of this interpretation, I notice Cabinet minutes (CAB 24_159_6) that refer both to the Statement of Policy alone and to all of Cmd 1700 as a "White Paper". I guess if they can't make up their minds we have an excuse at least. But this needs clarification in the article. Zerotalk 20:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing, it is not usual for a white paper to be presented like this one. And yet there it is, right on the front cover (twice in fact, once at the top and then right in the middle of the page) so I don't think there is any real doubt about the official title even if it is typically/colloquially referred to as the Churchill white paper (I have also found some sources that refer just to the policy bit as the "Churchill memorandum" but there is no consistency there). The so called statement of policy is not even really that, it is more of a summary of things that have been alluded to or discussed in the surrounding correspondence plus some other things. I suppose they were somehow trying to clarify that some sort of due process or consultations had taken place so that it might not appear as if it came out of the air, so to speak. The draft constitution had been circulated before and the Mandate was still only in draft when this was done. It is as if they were behind and ahead of themselves at the same time.
Of course, I would as well prefer some secondary source somewhere to say all of what I just said or similar, let me have a further think and another look around, see what I can come up with.Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at letter No 9, the last one, it is nothing more than a telegram from Churchill to HS
"A White Paper will be laid on Saturday the 1st July covering correspondence between His Majesty's Government and Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization from 21st February to 23rd June, 1922. This correspondence includes official statement of British policy in Palestine of which summary follows:-"

Idk if that helps or not, tbh. It says in effect that the white paper IS all the correspondence AND that it includes official statement of British policy.Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a helpful(!) page Palestine white papers and there we can see that although official/colloquial name usage may vary, they are all referred to as policy statements other than this one (where it is "included").Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have managed to so far find one solid reference for the official name and make up of the wp as being 9 documents with "Churchill's memorandum" being #5 so I have baked that into the lead. I would normally do that sort of thing as a note but in this case it is better to be spelled out.Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0 Here it is all references to "Churchill memorandum".Selfstudier (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After trawling many sources, what I find is that those that see the wp as being everything (which strictly speaking, is the case) often separately identify the enclosure to document 5 and then refer to it as the "Churchill memorandum" (some also refer to the entire thing as that). The majority simply ignore the situation and refer to the "the white paper" (or some such expression, Churchill white paper, 1922 white paper, cmd 1700, etc ) and what they actually mean is the enclosure to document #5.

Hurewitz documentary record trying to have his cake and eat it too, haha J. C. Hurewitz (1979). The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record - British-French Supremacy, 1914-1945. Yale University Press. pp. 301–. ISBN 978-0-300-02203-2.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Another thing I find somewhat confusing is the procedure of obtaining specific Zionist consent (made public as document 7) to the (enclosure to) document 5. I will see if I can find secondaries that go into the reasons why this public consent was thought necessary, after all they could have proceeded without it or obtained it privately, Palestinian consent was not obtained for anything. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why start at February?

[edit]

Tchah, once one starts asking questions, there is no end to them. We can see from the article that the Palestinian Arab delegation had been in London since August the previous year (still checking it, I think they met Churchill three times) but the published letters begin only with the Palestinian response to their being sent a copy (presumably earlier in February) of the proposed Palestine oic.Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Churchill_White_Paper&oldid=1206693687"