Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

What to do about the socks and 1RR?

This article appears to have attracted some sock-tactics (on both sides?) who are willfully breaching 1RR. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that i have not yet completed the merger, so we should all relax on edit-warring (there is much more to do here than this). This is not directed to Oncenawhile, but all those participating in the map revertion.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If all those interested in the map could instead participate in the above discussion, it would probably help Greyshark since the debate will also help confirm the scope of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Today part of ...

In the infobox under the heading "Today part of" there are Iraq and Saudi Arabia listed. I do not see any justification for this in the article. This situation needs correction one way or the other. Zero^talk 07:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the meaning is that Transjordan later became Jordan, which in turn swapped some territories with Saudi Arabia (the Aqaba) and Iraq. But that's quiet negligible to mention.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Repairs needed

This edit created a Cite error (red error message, #54 in References). Also, this section opens with a sentence fragment (a pre-existing problem), and needs a verb to make it grammatical. Help needed. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Zero^talk 10:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

British publication not the official one

Oncenawhile, the mandate text and the Transjordan memorandum were League of Nations documents, not British government documents. These two documents were published together in a pamphlet by the British government with a cover page that names both of them, but that is not the official version of those documents, and the name on the British cover page is not the official title. The official publications are in the League of Nations Official Journal. The mandate text is in Annex 391 on pages 1007–1012 of the August 1922 issue, and its title is "BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE". You can see a scan of the title here. The Transjordan memorandum is in Annex 420, pages 1390–1391 of the November 1922 issue, and its title is "ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE TERRITORY KNOWN AS TRANSJORDAN" with a sub-title "Memorandum by Lord Balfour, submitted to the Council on September 16th, 1922". Zero^talk 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Zero- I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation, it seems to contradict the Balfour quote in the article :- "[the] Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League."

At any rate, the British government was to carry out the Mandate's terms, so how they interpreted those terms is highly relevant. The document included by oncenawhile is the official document presented to the British Parliament, so in my opinion it is relevant so long as it is properly attributed. Britain was the superpower of the day and also the mandatory power, so in my view how they interpreted those documents is an important consideration. Dlv999 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know (without comparing every letter), the body of the text is exactly the same in the two places. The only issue is the title of the document. Oncenawhile took the name of the British pamphlet as the name of the Mandate for Palestine. But it isn't. Anyway, Balfour's statement is irrelevant. The British government never claimed the text was different from what was approved by the Council of the League of Nations, and the pamphlet is just something published for public information. Incidentally, there was no particular event in Parliament in December 1922 regarding the Mandate, it is just the month when the pamphlet was published. Zero^talk 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to describe the document as a "pamphlet" published for "public information", it was an official government document submitted to the British Parliament. I think the Balfour quote is relevant, because it indicates in Balfour's mind at least, that the Mandate was a creation of Britain and the allied powers - not the league. It also shows that Balfour was fairly adamant that in his view the British interpretation of the Mandate was more important than that of the League - who he relegated to a merely "supervisory" role. I think the title chosen for the document's official submission to the British Parliament is important, because it shows how the Mandatory power (Britian) interpreted and understood the mandate that they would administer. Dlv999 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This pamphlet was not how the Mandate was presented to the British parliament. It was debated by the parliament before it was voted on by the League of Nations months before, and, I'll repeat, nothing was presented to parliament in December 1922 (look at the link I gave you, it is a verbatim transcript). The pamphlet even says it contains two documents, read the "title" carefully noting the "together with". What is on the front of the pamphlet is a description of what is inside, first the "Mandate for Palestine", second the "Note by the Secretary-General...". Inside the pamphlet these two documents are named separately and even carry separate dates which are months apart. They are also both presented as League of Nations documents, note the "League of Nations" across the top of the cover, and the "Secretary-General" is the Secretary-General of the League of Nations (Eric Drummond). Zero^talk 11:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zero, with respect, your Hansard source does not prove that "this pamphlet was not how the Mandate was presented to the British parliament" but rather provides some circumstantial evidence. A few points of evidence the other way:

• It is an official Command paper, not a pamphlet (officially Cmd 1785)
• The document presented to the League of Nations was only the "final draft", known as Cmd 1500 of August 1921
• Cmd 1785 was officially reprinted in 1939, see here
• The UN's reference library in 1947 referred to Cmd 1785, not the LoN official journal (same link in bullet above)

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was a command paper, which makes it an official publication of the British government. What it contains are copies of two official documents of the League of Nations (just like it says). All command papers are considered to be "presented to Parliament", it doesn't mean that someone stood up in the parliament and presented it. Now look more closely at the link you provided. The UN secretariat was compiling a collection of documents for use of the UN committees working on the Palestine issue, and that page lists what they had compiled so far. It includes many British publications including the one you found, but it is listed as a British publication and no official UN status is given to it. You are also completely mistaken about what was before the League of Nations. Look at the last sentence of the Mandate for Palestine: "Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two." That is a reference to the 13th meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at St. James's Palace, London, on Monday, July 24, 1922, at 3 p.m. From the minutes: "The Council decided that the mandate for Palestine was approved with the revised text of Article 14" (Official Journal, Aug 1922, p823) So all your British publication proves is that the British government accepted the text adopted by League of Nations as the correct one. That has never been questioned by anyone. Lord Balfour certainly didn't question it, listen to how he introduced the Transjordan memorandum to the LofN council: "Lord Balfour reminded his colleagues that Article 25 of the mandate for Palestine as approved by the Council in London on July 24th, 1922, provides that the territories in Palestine which lie east of the Jordan should be under a somewhat different regime from the rest of Palestine." (Official Journal, Nov 1922, 1188-9) Zero^talk 12:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realised that the evidence of the pamphlet is even plainer. At the end of the Mandate for Palestine (page 9) it has "Certified true copy: For the Secretary-General, RAPPARD, Director of the Mandates Section". That is William Rappard, director of the Mandates Section of the League of Nations from 1920 to 1925, signing on behalf of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. The other document is also expressly presented as a League of Nations document: "The Secretary-General has the honour to communicate ... The memorandum was approved by the Council...". Zero^talk 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zero, I don't disagree with any of what you have just written, and I don't think it contradicted with my points above. We are agreed on which were the official LoN versions. My point is simply that Cmd 1785 is "the" (not just "an") official British version, which I don't believe you are disputing either. The only open question is which of the LoN official version / British official version is more "important" (whatever that means). That is why I showed the UN link above, as the UN chose to source the British version over the LoN one in their reference library, and why Dlv999 brought the Balfour quote. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"the UN chose to source the British version over the LoN one" – no it didn't. Zero^talk 12:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please could you tell me what I am missing? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some more sources:

• This one refers to the definitive text and
• this one refers to all the LoN mandate publications. This is compelling.

The official journal version is an official recording of what was accepted by the LoN at the time, but the "official versions" were those that were later formally published by the British and LoN - both of which combined the two documents. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't reply more on this subject, there is no point. Thanks for finding the catalogue, it might be useful. Zero^talk 20:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. The real point of relvance is whether on the basis of the above the article Transjordan memorandum should be merged in here, as both the British Government and the League of Nations treated them as a single combined document. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a separate page for the Mandate legal document, it could cover the Transjordan memorandum as well. That would need to be discussed. Zero^talk 09:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

immigration certificates remaining at the end of WWII

It is well known that there were still some of the White Paper's 75,000 immigration certificates remaining at the end of WWII, though there is disagreement over the number. R. Ovendale, The Palestine Policy of the British Labour Government 1945-1946, International Affairs, Vol. 55, pages 409-431, says there were 3,000. Arieh Kochavi (1998). "The Struggle against Jewish Immigration to Palestine". Middle Eastern Studies 34: 146–167 says there were 10,938. Also confirmed in the book of Ofer (which is a few thousand km from me at the moment so I can't quote it). On the other hand, the 5-year period specified in the White Paper under the assumption that 15,000 certificates would be taken up each year had expired. The fact is that in the last several years of WWII there were not enough Jews getting out of Europe to make any big dent in the number of certificates. Zero^talk 09:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So what does any of this have to do with you removing the reference to those who were sent to Mauritius? Pilusi3 (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's true that some people were sent to Mautitius or local internment camps, and I have no objection to it being in the article. However, it has to be sourced and it has to be correct. Besides that, the white paper is mentioned in at least 6 sections and illegal immigration is mentioned in at least 3 sections, which is a mess that should be tidied up. Zero^talk 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced. You deleted the source with the information. Pilusi3 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be generous and assume you are not lying on purpose. You did not give a source, you inserted your sentence between old information and the source it had. I did not delete any source. Zero^talk 01:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Be as generous as you like. Your edit here [1] stands on its own merits. You didn't delete the source, but you removed the only information to which that source was referenced to. What possible motive you had for doing so, one can only guess at. Pilusi3 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Palestine / Transjordan / Yitzhak Shamir

Two issues have come up from the last few days of editing of this article: (1) Whether a map showing the Mandate to include modern day Jordan is appropriate, and (2) whether it is appropriate to say that TransJordan was 77% of the original Palestine mandate territory. The facts are as follows:

Timeline of Mandate discussions

• Jan 1919 - Apr 1920 - Paris Peace Conf, Conference of London, San Remo Conference: Mandate system first discussed in Jan 1919. Negotiations were ongoing during this period, and the Palestine mandate was awarded (although not legally documented) at the San Remo Conference. TransJordan was not mentioned at the conference.
• Dec 1920 - First draft of the Mandate document. Did not include any reference to TransJordan - nothing had yet been agreed anywhere about the Eastern border of the mandate. Negotiations were ongoing with the Zionists and the Hashemites
• Mar 1921 - Cairo Conference, in which British decided to give TransJordan to Emir Abdullah (whose army was camped in Ma'an at the time)
• 24 July 1922 - Mandate was accepted by the League of Nations including Article 25, to come in to force in 1923. The mandate's title was "Mandate for Palestine, together with a Note by the Secretary-General relating to its application to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, under the provisions of Article 25"
• 16 Sep 1922 (6 weeks later) - Transjordan memorandum was accepted by the League of Nations, including the words "His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan". British Government then passes the "Order defining Boundaries of Territory to which the Palestine Order-in-Council does not apply"
• May 1923 - Britain recognized Transjordan as an independent government
• Sep 1923 - The mandate comes in to legal force

The Mandate did not become legally binding until 1923, after Britain's "Mandatory for TransJordan" had been accepted by the league of nations. The map suggests a situations which was never legally the case.

Timeline of actual control of TransJordan territory (see Timeline of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)

• 1918: Faisal, the leader of the Arab revolt and the third son of Hussein, King of Hejaz, is declared head of a provisional government in what was previously the Vilayet of Syria. The area which became Trans-Jordan was split between the southern extension of Syria and the northern extension of Hejaz
• 1920: In March, Faisal proclaimed himself King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria
• 1920: Battle of Maysalun - In July, French forces captured Damascus and expelled Faisal. His brother Abdullah moved his forces into Ma'an (then in the north of the Kingdom of Hejaz) with a view to liberating Damascus
• 1921: After the Cairo conference, Abdullah was given provisional control of the territory then known as TransJordan (whose borders were not the same as those today)
• May 1923: This control was cemented with the granting of semi-independence in 1923
• 1925: Hadda Agreement between TransJordan and Nejd formally agrees the boudary between the two countries following the Kuwait Conference. This brings Aqaba and Ma'an (Southern part of today's Jordan) into TransJordan. This happened after the Saudi's defeated the Hashemites in Hejaz, and the Hashemite army retained this northern part of their territory. The agreement concludes by stating "This Agreement will remain in force for so long as His Britannic Majesty's Government are entrusted with the Mandate for Trans-Jordan"

Britain did not control TransJordan militarily following the war - this was left to the Hashemites. The governing authorities over the two territories were at no point a single entity. The boundaries of TransJordan in the early 1920s were different to those shown in the wiki map.

Contemporary maps Attached are a couple of contemporary maps:

• here for a good contemporary map. Colonel Lawrence Martin was in the British forces in Mesopotamia.
• here shows which borders were agreed at the time of the Cairo Conference.

They show that the borders of Transjordan in the maps in this article are not exactly correct, also undermining the "77%" stat which is calculated based on today's borders and has no contemporary source quoting it. The jordan-saudi borders were not defined until 1925. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually read through the primary sources, but according to my knowlege of the secondary ones (Salibi for example), there is quiet a common reference to TransJordan as part of the British administration in the region. Nevertheless, i do agree that "TransJordan was 77% of Palestine" is a sort of made-up number. We do need some secondary professional opinions in this regard.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I have seen passing reference to it as well, but have never managed to identify the original source. The finer details of the political wrangling during 1919-22 are not well known, and confusion is rife regarding what was implied/agreed/defined/documented/legal at each of the various stages.

Importantly, the map that shows both P and TS together does not have any WP:RS supporting it - in all the RS books I have read I have never seen any which use a map like that. It does exist on various propaganda websites, but without a source. Apart from the Southern borders being wrong, the key issue is that the only existance of something similar to its depiction was in the draft mandate, and only then by implication because the draft didn't specifically carve out TS.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says

An article was included in the Mandate for Palestine which allowed the UK to postpone or withhold unspecified provisions from the lands which lay to the east of the Jordan River.[52] On 16 September 1922, the League of Nations approved a British memorandum detailing its intended implementation of that clause, namely to exclude Transjordan from the articles related to Jewish settlement.[53][54]

From that point onwards, Britain administered the 23% west of the Jordan as "Palestine", and the 77% east of the Jordan as "Transjordan." The subsequent two mandates were administrated under one single British Foreign Office High Commissioner which does not prejudice or vacate the international principle whereof official League of Nations documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transfer of authority to an Arab government took place gradually in Transjordan, starting with the recognition of a local administration in 1923 and transfer of most administrative functions in 1928. The status of the mandate was not altered by the agreement between the United Kingdom and the Emirate concluded on 20 February 1928.[55][56] It recognised the existence of an independent government in Transjordan and defined and limited its powers. The ratifications were exchanged on 31 October 1929."[57] Britain retained mandatory authority over the region until it became independent as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946.

It seems pretty clear to me that the scope of this article includes what is now modern day Jordan. The map colors reflect that. I suspect some sort of pro-Jordan non-NPOV may be in play here. If you believe that the facts of the article are not correct, I recommend focusing there.

However, if you do focus there, I recommend citations. In the last 500 edits we've gone from

Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates.[2]

to

The subsequent two mandates were administrated under one single British Foreign Office High Commissioner which does not prejudice or vacate the international principle whereof official League of Nations documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates.

with no references for any of this.

Finally, unless some can find references for

From that point onwards, Britain administered the 23% west of the Jordan as "Palestine"

I'm not even sure that label belongs on the map, though maybe that isn't important. Scott Illini (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased to say that I have found the source of the 77% claim - it was a certain Yitzhak Shamir in his 1982 article in Foreign Affairs The Middle East: Israel's Role in a Changing Middle East, in which he states "The state known today as the Kingdom of Jordan is an integral part of what was once known as Palestine (77 percent of its territory)". No further explanation or source is provided.

This google book search shows that the 77% statement began with Shamir in 1982. This explains how a spurious piece of information has been widely taken up, despite its anachronous calculation and its inaccurate depiction of history.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm casting doubt on your detective work, but here's something from 1962. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's call it the exception that proves the rule. That is the only reference to the figure prior to Shamir's, with a gap of silence in between of 20 years. Only after Shamir's article did references to this anachronous calculation begin to multiply. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, let's call it the inadequacy of trying to use google to prove something didn't exist and an argument from ignorance. It took me exactly two minutes to find that source. The fact the specific combination of words you looked for supposedly didn't exist prior to 1982 doesn't mean the idea didn't exist, as the source I provided above proves. I doubt Robert St. John came up with the idea himself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you found any others pre-Shamir? I spent two hours searching this morning, and cannot. But you seem so confident, so I am sure you'll back yourself. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea that Transjordan was part of Palestine and was maliciously excluded from the Jewish Homeland by the British was a standard part of the Revisionist Zionist belief system. For example, the 1925 platform of Ha-Zohar (an early Revisionist group, not sure if we have an article on them) said "the aim of Zionism is the gradual transformation of Palestine (including Transjordan) into a Jewish commonwealth, that is into a self-governing commonwealth under the auspices of an established Jewish majority" (Shavit, Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, p185). There are many other examples. Zero^talk 12:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is another one of the reasons that there is so much confusion as to the original status of TransJordan within the Palestine mandate. Many Zionists, including prominent Brits like Herbert Samuel, fought hard to have TransJordan included in the Palestine mandate, although most gave up the fight after 1922. This deserves mention in the article - a section on the negotiations specifically around TransJordan would be a good addition in my view. Do others agree?

Then back to the original point above, the article needs to be amended to clearly separate what many were negotiating for (inclusion of TJ) vs what actually happened (two separate political entities). The map and the text that Scott raised represent "actual wishful thinking", not "actual fact", so belong in the section on negotiations around TransJordan along with appropriate factual amendments.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you think Transjordan was not part of the Mandate, perhaps you can explain article 25 of the text of the Mandate as accepted by the LoN? What are "the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"?

By the way, you might be interested in the map the BBC uses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear exactly what is being argued about here. Does anyone question that the legal document known as the "Mandate for Palestine" applied to the territories on both sides of the Jordan River? Does anyone question that British practice, during the entire time the Mandate was in effect (1923-1948), was to call the west part "Palestine" and the east part "Transjordan"? Zero^talk 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm following him correctly, Oncenawhile is claiming Transjordan was not part of the Mandate, and perhaps that there was another Mandate, one "for Transjordan". It's a bit hard to follow.

Apparently, he also thinks Shamir is the source for something Shamir is obviously not the source for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zero, the statement "the legal document known as the Mandate for Palestine applied to the territories on both sides of the Jordan River" is technically true, but highly misleading. In particular, what does "applied to" actually mean here - certainly not what most readers would assume. To summarise:

• The was no "legal document" until the final version in July 1922, by which time the separate status of TransJordan had already been agreed (and Abdullah had been ruling the territory for over a year). Hence (a) the full title of the mandate document mentions Trans-Jordan as a separate territory; (b) Article 25; (c) six weeks later the TransJordan memorandum was accepted; (d) numerous official uses of the term "Mandat(ory) for TransJordan". So it would be more accurate to say something along the lines of "Together with the TransJordan Memorandum, the legal document known as the Mandate for Palestine effected the creation of the Mandate / Emirate of TransJordan"
• The maps being used are all incorrect as a large part of the north of the Kingdom of Hejaz has been included, which was not added to TransJordan until 1925, two years after the separate status of TransJordan from Palestine became legal in 1923 (you can see this if you look closely at the Sykes-Picot map). In the same way, the 77% figure is erroneous, calculated using the modern borders which did not exist even in negotiations at the time. It appears to have propagated following use by Shamir in a 1982 article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are misinformed. There is no mention of Transjordan by name in the Mandate document or its title. The full title as it appears in the Official Journal of the League of Nations is "British Mandate for Palestine". You are correct that a decision had already been made to administer Transjordan separately, which is why Article 25 is present, but there was no separate mandate document for Transjordan. British authority in Transjordan derived from the Mandate for Palestine. The "Transjordan memorandum" did not provide additional authority, as it was presented and accepted as an interpretation of the Mandate for Palestine and not as a variation of it. When Balfour presented the memorandum to the LoN Council he said "The British Government now merely proposed to carry out this article." (i.e. Article 25) and nobody objected to this understanding. Further confirmation is in the Palestine Order in Council (1925) which formed the basis of British law in Palestine — Transjordan is explicitly mentioned as being excluded from the provisions as otherwise it would not have been be excluded. You are correct that the phrases "Mandate for Transjordan" and "Mandatory for Transjordan" can be found in official documents, but these refer to the British authority in Transjordan derived from the Mandate for Palestine. Zero^talk 10:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not misinformed. See here. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read that document? It talks about which provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to Trans-Jordan, meaning that Trans-Jordan is part of the Mandate and that those provisions that are not specifically excluded are applicable. Just as Zero said above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG is correct. That publication supports what I wrote. Note that the title is just the title of this particular publication, not the official title of the two documents it quotes. Zero^talk 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Under the League of Nations mandate system, the word 'mandate' was applied with different meanings. Using one sense of the word, Palestine and Transjordan were covered by one mandate; using a different sense, Palestine and Transjordan were separate mandates.

In a recent discussion of which you were part, at the Mandate Palestine talk page, I described the terminology: "the League of Nations gave mandates (authorisations to govern), namely the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, the British Mandate for Palestine and the British Mandate for Iraq, to the mandatories France and Britain to govern the newly created mandates (entities - also called mandate territories) Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, which were carved out of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War."

As an outcome from the mandate (first meaning) known as the British Mandate for Palestine, two separate mandates (second meaning - otherwise called mandate territories), known as Palestine and Transjordan, were created. When the word 'mandate' is being used, it's necessary to be clear what sense of the word is being utilised.

The BBC should have used a less sloppy source for their diagram. For one thing, contrary to what it states, although there was a transfer from a military to a civil administration in 1920, the Mandate didn't come into force officially until 1923, as we know.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC) (16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC): struck-out erroneous paragraph)

And as I said in that previous discussion, Transjordan was not a separate mandate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the second definition, meaning that it was a territory governed separately under the mandate system, yes it was, in the same way that Lebanon and Syria were two separate mandates (or mandate territories) covered by one mandate act.     ←   ZScarpia   01:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that support this claim? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "mandate" is sometimes used as a synonym for "mandated territory"; it could be cited to a dictionary if necessary. Why this is interesting is not clear to me. Certainly Transjordan was a "mandated territory", which I can cite to legal journals, but it got that way because it was covered by the Mandate for Palestine. We can speak properly about the law against exceeding the speed limit even though there is no specific law for that but just a clause in the Traffic Law. Big deal. Zero^talk 08:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Norman Bentwich, the Attorney-General of Palestine, wrote about this issue in 1928 (British Year Book of International Law, vol 10, 1928, p213):

An agreement was made in February 1928, between His Britannic Majesty and the Emir of Transjordan, varying in important respects the execution of the Mandate for Transjordan which was conferred with the Mandate for Palestine in 1922. There was, indeed, no separate Mandate for Transjordan; but by a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations, passed in September 1922, at the suggestion of the British Government, certain provisions of the Mandate for Palestine were, in accordance with Article 25 of that Mandate, declared not applicable in the territory lying east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. It was further provided in the application of the Mandate to Transjordan that the action which in Palestine is taken by the Administration of Palestine will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory. A declaration by the British Government was approved to the effect that His Majesty's Government accepts full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertakes that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not declared inapplicable by the resolution.

Zero^talk 08:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up is because, in the arguments happening here, there are constant misunderstandings about what editors and sources mean because it has not been appreciated that the word mandate, as it has been applied relative to the mandate system, has several different meanings. For instance, this results in references to the mandate of Palestine or the Palestine mandate being read as applying to the whole area covered by the Mandate for Palestine, Palestine and Transjordan, when they actually refer only to Palestine.     ←   ZScarpia   16:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether Tansjordan should be included in the map at the top of the page, I believe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Transjordan should clearly be included, but the existing map is highly unsatisfactory. There is no reason for not indicating the border between the two parts. Also, "British Mandate of Palestine" is written across it as if that was a place name, but it never was (except as a name for the left part). I propose that the internal border be indicated, the two parts be labeled "Palestine" and "Transjordan", and the caption read "The region covered by the British Mandate for Palestine". Agreed? Zero^talk 10:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an improvement. Do you have such a map handy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a map based on the one showing Pledges and Border Changes, 1917-1923 on p.8 of Gilbert's Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict would be a good way to go?     ←   ZScarpia   16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That map has the same problems with (1) anachronous borders for TransJordan (not only post-1925 but post-1965!); (2) the map's key makes the same anachronous suggestion about TransJordan being "separated" from Palestine (Gilbert is a revisionist zionist - see Zero's 31 Jan comment above). I strongly disagree that the map should show TransJordan. Perhaps i have misunderstood what other editors are saying - to try to clear this up I have the following questions:

• Is this article about a place (Mandate Palestine) or a legal instrument (British Mandate for Palestine)?
• Does anyone disagree that the legal instrument of the British Mandate of Palestine was only ever in force in combination with the TransJordan memorandum?
• Does anyone disagree that the legal application of the Mandate and memorandum to the two territories (as per the Bentwich quote above) is much more subtle than the various maps suggest?
• Does anyone disagree that saying TransJordan was "separated" from mandate Palestine is anachronous?
• Does anyone disagree that it is anachronous to use the post-1925 Jordan borders in a 1917-1923 map?
• Does anyone disagree with the accuracy of the map on this page which i linked to earlier, showing which borders were provisional / agreed at the time of the 1921 Cairo Conference?

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A cast iron source comfirming the existance of the separate "Mandate for TransJordan" is here. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cast iron? I think you may have misunderstood the syntax and context of this document, which confirms the separate administration that had been undertaken of the western and eastern parts of a single underlying mandate territory, with the western portion alone now being called "Palestine". It reports upon the administration of both parts. The opening paragraphs of Section II, item 2 explicitly reiterate that the terms of the Mandate for Palestine apply to Transjordan with the exception of the Jewish national home provisions, per Article 25. The language used is a bit convoluted and easily misconstrued, but does not, in the end, indicate a separate mandate for Transjordan. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, I'm not sure how you can justify your interpretation. See section II of the Document "REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF TRANSJORDAN." During the whole period of the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan were two separately administered territories (or mandates). During the whole of this period they were separate territories -historically, politically, economically etc, and they were also referred to as separate mandates in the official documents as this document shows. The confusion comes in because the legal basis for the administration of two territories (Palestine and Transjorden) came from the same legal instrument - The "Mandate for Palestine" passed at the league of nations. I agree with you that the terms of the legal instrument "Mandate for Palestine" applied to Transjordan (apart from the national home provisions) as well as Palestine. But it is also true that the terms of the legal instrument "Mandate for Palestine" allowed for the creation of two separate geopolitical entities (or mandates or territories) - which is in fact what happened. Dlv999 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This report is not an authorizing legal instrument granted to Britain by the League, nor does it allude to separately granted, separately named instruments. The title phrase, "...ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF TRANSJORDAN" begs the question "which mandate?" and the only ironclad answer is the Mandate for Palestine. "The phrase elsewhere, "Administration of [not Mandate for] Transjordan", is particularly telling. We must carefully distinguish between grants and territories (same old confusion, discussed elsewhere on this page, that comes from having both senses of the word covered in one article). I believe you falsely conflate the two by saying "two separately administered territories (or mandates)." Hertz1888 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hertz- No-one has claimed this is anything other than an official report by the Mandatory power (Britain) to the league of nations. No-one has claimed that this report is a legal instrument. As has already been made clear the legal instrument that allowed for the two separately administered territories (or mandates) was the "Mandate for Palestine" passed at the league of nations along with the Transjordan memorandum. As you point out section II of the document (which covers the mandate of Transjordan) sometimes refers to the Mandate of Transjordan, other times just Transjordan and other times simply refers to "the territory" in all instances the document is referring to the geopolitical entity of Transjordan. You state :"The phrase elsewhere, "Administration of [not Mandate for] Transjordan", is particularly telling." - but I would say that this is a red herring. Palestine and Syria are at times also discussed with out the prefix "mandate". I don't think the title nor any other mentions of the Mandate of Transjordan begs any question. The terms of the Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) allowed for the British to divide and administer the territories as two separate geopolitical entities, which is exactly what they did - referring to the two entities as the "Mandate of Transjordan" (or simply Transjordan) and Palestine (this is confirmed in the official report to the LoN). Do you at least agree that there were to separate geopolitical entities (Palestine and Transjordan) created under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) and that the political, historic, economic ect situation was totally different in each territory? Dlv999 (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I ever question that? Of course there were two entities created—under the terms of one legal instrument, as you say. What triggered my response in the first place is that someone did claim this report proves the existence of a separate Mandate for Transjordan. That implies a separate grant. We have an obligation to be precise and not use the term "Mandate" ambiguously. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Div999 and Hertzl1888 are in agreement on the main points, and so am I. However, I think Oncenawhile doesn't agree, since he/she brought this report as evidence for a "separate Mandate for TransJordan". Actually the report confirms in Paragraph II-2 that there wasn't a separate mandate. Zero^talk 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree on the main points made above. Hertz's use of the word "implies" is the key issue here - this whole debate is about what is implied from the use of loose language when describing what was a subtle legal construct. Separately, ZScarpia has raised an important point a number of times about the different uses of the word "mandate", which must be considered.

Noone is claiming there is another League of Nations mandate document hidden somewhere. We are simply trying to reach agreement that "Palestine proper" and "TransJordan" were always, from the very beginning of the "Mandate system", two separate "territories", had two separate "administrations under mandate", had two different "applications of the Mandate", had Britain as separately the "Mandatory for Palestine" and "Mandatory for TransJordan", and were therefore often treated and referred to as two separate "mandates" (using Zscarpia's explanation of dual meaning). Oncenawhile (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

outdenting

If there gets to be an article called "Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)" or similar, this article could be restricted to west of the Jordan River. (Probably that was the motivation for the fork which is currently being undone.) If there isn't such an article, this one should cover both the legal instrument and the territories it applied to. Both options bring their own sets of problems and I'm not sure which would be best. Regarding Oncenawhile's list:

• The map at this page shows someone's interpretation of the spheres of influence agreed by the Great Powers in 1919. I don't think it suffices as a map of the mandated territories.
• There is indeed a problem, and a great amount of inaccuracy among sources, regarding the border adjustments made in the early mandate period. Even the Palestine-Transjordan border took a while to sort out, and the Transjordan-Saudi and Transjordon-Iraq borders took longer. It would be great to have a map that indicates all the various historical borders annotated with their dates, but I don't know of such a map existing and making one would require a fair bit of work. Meanwhile, I suggest that we side-step the problem by showing a map with the borders as they sat during the majority of the mandate period, say the borders in the late 1930s. The map would of course be annotated to say exactly what is being presented.
• We shouldn't be using words like "separated" carelessly, which probably excludes them from maps or map captions.
• The approval of the Transjordan memorandum came after the LofN approved the Mandate for Palestine but before it came into effect.

Zero^talk 02:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Zero, thanks for your thoughtful response. FYI, the map I linked to was sourced to The Times 1922 Atlas (originally published in 1920) of John George Bartholomew. I am not aware of any more reputable contemporary sources.

Greyshark, ZScarpia and NMMNG - what are your views on my questions above?

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that this article is both about the place and about the instrument, that the Transjordan memorandum shows Transjordan was part of the Mandate, and that a map that accurately shows all the nuances of the border changes is preferable to the one in the article at the moment, but since we don't have one of those the current map is fine.

I also think the map you posted has likely been edited (notice "French Syria", "Bagdad"[sic], and "Jerusalem" use a different font and color than the rest of the map) and that its source is not RS. I don't see where it says it's sourced to the Times Atlas. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is where it is sourced to the Times Atlas [3]. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain where you got the idea you have consensus to remove this map from multiple articles? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources abound for Britain having had two mandates (not three): one for Palestine and one for Mesopotamia, with the British Mandate for Palestine being a single mandate that came to be administered in two parts. As sourced in the article itself (currently citation #79), "There was never any question that Britain's two mandates—for Palestine and Mesopotamia—were to be geographically contiguous. The UK had not decided by 1920 where in the desert east of the Jordan River the boundary line between eastern Palestine and Mesopotamia should be drawn." [emphasis added]. I don't see how there can be any doubt that the current map showing the British Mandate for Palestine on both sides of the Jordan is, in general terms, a reasonable representation. Cosmetic enhancements, such as showing the Jordan River, could be helpful, but the general outlines currently shown are true to history, and are reflected in numerous other sources; the BBC map comes to mind immediately. The two parts of Palestine included in the mandate were sometimes referred to by the neo-Latin terms of cis-Jordan ("on this side of the Jordan", or western Palestine) and trans-Jordan ("across the Jordan", or eastern Palestine). Hertz1888 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the article as it stands is misleading. The title "British Mandate for Palestine" and the current map refers to the legal instrument that included both Palestine and Transjordan. But the text, particularly the historical and political sections refers solely to what was going on in Palestine. This is highly misleading. If British Mandate for Palestine refers to both Palestine and Transjordan the article should describe the historical and political situations in both places equally, throughout the whole period of the mandate the historical and political situation in each place was totally different and this should be reflected in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you also try to explain the etymology of the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and South Pacific Mandate?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999 is right - the article needs to clearly distinguish between the place and the legal instrument. Greyshark, I don't understand what your question is getting at. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the articles British Mandate of Mesopotamia, the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and South Pacific Mandate you will not find any separate legal instrument articles on those issues. It seems to me your logic would imply also an article on "Syria", having another article about the "Republic of Syria" - the legal instrument. Anyway, if you so much like to have a legal instrument article - please go ahead to propose a demerge, but i would only support it if there would be a proper naming like "British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)", and not something confusing, which might eventually morph into another article on Mandatory Palestine, have a flag, government and demographics etc. Legal instruments don't have populations and economics.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, Hertz1888, the points you made have been discussed already above. This debate is much more subtle than your answers suggest. If you want to participate constructively, please answer the specific discussion points raised rather than starting from the beginning. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: There is already a page for Transjordan which discusses Transjordan under the British mandate for Palestine. What I think this article should be (and essentially already is), is an article on Palestine (the place) under the British mandate for Palestine (which is the legal instrument that also included Palestine and transJordan). I propose changing the title of this article to something along the lines of "Palestine under the British Mandate". The text (and map) should clearly indicate that Palestine during this period was part of the British Mandate for Palestine, which included both Palestine and Transjordan. But it should also be made clear that the topic in this article is Palestine during that period. Another article could be created that discusses the legal instrument "The Britsih Mandate for Palestine", which should link both this article and the one covering Transjordan under the mandate. It doesn't make much sense to try to discuss both Palestine and Transjordan during this period in the same article -the current incarnation fails miserably because apart from the legal section only Palestine is discussed and there is nothing about Transjordan.

The alternative would be to keep the title and map as they are and break up each section (history, politics, demographics, government and institutions, economy, education etc) into into two parts so that it discusses the situation in both Palestine and Transjordan. Dlv999 (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support "Palestine under the British Mandate", with a separate article to discuss the legalities and history of Palestine vs Transjordan. Zero^talk 11:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea to have an article about the legal instrument, which would encompass both western Palestine (or Cisjordan) and Transjordan (or eastern Palestine) is not new. It is possible, but the name should clearly indicate that the issue is the estbalishment of the mandate or the document itself, otherwise we would be back to the original problem having two identical articles about Mandatory Palestine. I completely oppose the idea to go back there, because demerge was supposed to improve the misarable previous articles, not recreating them. I don't mind making an article named "British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)" (must specify this is not a country article), and rename this one to "British Mandate Palestine".Greyshark09 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The previous situation was terrible, and your (Greyshark's) great deal of good work merging the two was much needed. Whenever you are finished with the merge, I also support the proposal for a separate article about the legal instrument. The names you suggested are fine with me. One additional suggestion - the "legal instrument" article could be merged with the article on the Transjordan memorandum. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark -just to be 100% clear about your suggested title "British Mandate Palestine". Is the scope of this proposed article to be Palestine during the British Mandate period, or is the scope of the article to be both Palestine and Transjordan during the British mandate period (i.e. both territories that were included in the legal instrument - British Mandate for Palestine)? Dlv999 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"British Mandate Palestine" will be about the western Palestine (CisJordan), whereas "Transjordan" goes to the Hashemite Emirate of Transjordan (eastern Palestine).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading through other comments i do understand your meaning - "British Mandate for Palestine" (or renamed to a similar title) is tehnically about the western Palestine (CisJordan), but it should have a section with brief description of "Transjordan", or the Hashemite Emirate of Transjordan (eastern Palestine), which had been split from Mandatory Palestine in the very beginning into an autonomous region (similar to the status of Iraqi Kurdistan in Iraq today). We hence should have a section on Transjordan here, with linking to the main article about the emirate. Since both administrative areas were practically separated, the main topic here would remain western Palestine.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm finished with the merger, but the article requires much work to be rewritten. I think it is better to organize it first, and see which sections require splitting (seems now - "History" and "Legal basis"/legal instrument, but could change when removing double info and adding the missing info).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark - I disagree with your revised position. I think your new proposal will just muddy the waters and lead to confusion between "British Mandate for Palestine" (the legal instrument that included two territories -Palestine and Transjordan) and this article which will be about the place Palestine (West of the Jordan) during the mandatory period. I think we should have one article "British Mandate for Palestine" that discusses the legal instrument. Then Two separate articles that discuss each territory that made up the mandate. It makes little sense to discuss them in the same article as they were never administered as one territory, the historical, political, economic, etc situation was different in both places. The article for Transjordan already exists. I propose changing the name of this one to "Palestine under the British Mandate" to avoid any further confusions. Dlv999 (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dlv - we need to keep this simple. The article about the place should refer to Palestine proper only, for all the reasons discussed above. Greyshark, do you feel strongly about your alternative position on this, and if so could you explain your position on the questions raised above? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We have been there - you will end up with two identical articles. I will fully oppose to you proposal to go back to the previous status. The only logical thing is to expand the "legal basis" section to a new article named "Legal aspects of the British Mandate for Palestine" or maybe "British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)".Greyshark09 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested (by me) that you merged the original articles into a single Mandate Palestine, rather than Mandate for Palestine, one, which, among other things, would have avoided the current problem where it is being queried why the article doesn't cover the history of Transjordan. The old Mandate for Palestine article made it clear in a note right under the title that the article was about the League of Nations act and that the history of Mandate Palestine was covered in a separate article. Hence, there wasn't any real confusion. The impression that I have is that there is a consensus for a demerge. The questions are what to entitle the articles and how to avoid the orginal problem where a lot of material was covered in the same depth in both articles. Personally, I don't have a problem with calling one article "British Mandate for Palestine (League of Nations act)", or something similar if that would make you happier.     ←   ZScarpia   21:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@ZScarpia, i perfectly agree with you - the previous condition (prior to merge) was bad and we all agreed on merging with possible rename and demerge. I have no problem to make another article on the legal issues/legal act - "British Mandate for Palestine (League of Nations act)" is fine, as long as it doesn't become an article on a "country" (as it was prior to the merge). Same way i don't mind to rename the "British Mandate for Palestine" -> "British Mandate Palestine" or "Mandate Palestine". Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Grey sharkI'm not sure how the articles could end up as identical. One will be "British mandate for Palestine" -The legal instrument passed at the League of nations that was the legal basis for the administration of the territories of Transjordan and Palestine (west of the Jordan) during the madantory period. The second article will be "Palestine under the British Mandate" -Which will discuss the place, Palestine (west of the Jordan), during the mandatory period 1922-1948. There will also be a third article which already exists Transjordan, which will discuss transjordan during the mandatory period.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the original merge plan, and once this article is fixed we will be able to see if any of the sub topics actually has enough material for its own article. I'm not sure the legal instrument does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Div, prior to the merge, the articles "British Mandate for Palestine" and "Mandate Palestine" were almost perfectly indentical except a section or two, even though one was supposed to deal with "legal act" and another with the geopolitic formation (country). In many ways i see the situation with the "British Mandate for Palestine" and "Transjordan" similar to the "French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon" and "State of Aleppo", "State of Jabal Duruz" and other autonomous formations.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Greyshark - I had a look at the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon page. The page treats the six states that made up the mandate more or less equally, with links to more detailed pages of each individual state. What we have on this page is an article that purports to be about the British mandate for Palestine, but in many ways is in fact only about one of two territories that were created under the terms of the mandate. If you want to use the mandate Syria model, Transjordan and Palestine must be treated equally in the article. In my opinion the best way to do that is to give them separate articles - Transjordan already exists, "Palestine under the British mandate" can be created by demerging the content that only relates to Palestine from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

%Div, i agree that we need another section in the current article to describe the Transjordanian Emirate and have a link to the main page. We may also rename this article to "British Mandate Palestine" or "Mandate Palestine" to go along the consensus and prevent confusion, i'm not in favor of "Palestine under the British Mandate", because it is not supported by WP:COMMONNAME. Splitting this article to two according to your description is WP:FORK, and completely unbased - there was one mandate, which included the territory of Transjordan, with the Emirate being fully autonomous and loosely populated part of Eastern Mandatory Palestine. Western Palestine within the Mandate, on the other hand, had no independent authority.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark- could you please explain to me your WP:COMMONNAME claim? Also I think your fork claim is misguided. The three articles I am suggesting are on three different topics : "Palestine under the British Mandate" is about the geopolitical entity of Palestine (West of the Jordan) during the period of the British Mandate(1922-48). The Transjordan article is about the geopolitical entity Transjordan during the period of the mandate(1922-1948). The "British Mandate for Palestine" is about the legal instrument under the terms of which the two aforementioned territories were brought into existence. I think the name "Mandate Palestine" is a bad idea because it leads to a confusion between whether we are talking about the Mandate for Palestine(legal instrument) or the territory Palestine (west of the Jordan). I think what you are trying to do is have an article on a fantasy "geopolitical polity", that in reality never existed. Mandate for Palestine covering both Palestine and Transjordan existed as a legal construct but never as a single real world political entity. Transjordan and Palestine during the whole period had separate seats of Government, different political, economic, legal, demographic ect ect situations. Difficult to know where to go from here as unfortunately we seem to be moving away form a consensus and not towards it Dlv999 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to most sources i got to read WP:COMMONNAME is "Mandate Palestine", "Mandatory Palestine" and "British Mandate (of/for) Palestine", don't recall any mention of "Palestine under the British Mandate". Regarding Transjordan - a little bit history - the Mandate included Transjordan since the beginning, however in 1923 the Hashemites got a semi-autonomous administration; in 1928 the Transjordanian Emirate became autonomous and in 1946 fully independent. When relating to Transjordan being a separate entity - it is all a question of definition and timeline.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"British Mandate for Palestine", "Mandate Palestine" and "Palestine under/during the British Mandate" all refer to different things. The decision is not based on which is more common, but what we want the topic and scope of the article to be. A WP:COMMONAME argument is used when there are different names for the same thing. In my opinion the task here is to decide the scope of the article in a rational manner and then choose the article title accordingly. Dlv999 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, with reference to the reversion that you just made of my edit to the Lead section, it looks as though you haven't understood yet, that the British Mandate for Palestine was NOT any kind of polity, geopolital or otherwise. The name simply refers to an act of the League of Nations. The current text is incorrect and should be changed. Why did you call my edit 'controversial'?

It again creates confusion, the idea was to create an article on Mandatory Palestine, not the legal act. To resolve it - let's go on with rename proposal "British Mandate for Palestine" to "British Mandate Palestine" and later another article may be created titled the "British Mandate for Palestine (League of Nations act)", to cover the legal aspects. Changing the lead section now, prior the described procedures is problematic.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

With reference to whether to carry out a demerge or not, something that needs to be considered is how to produce a sane structure for the set of articles covering material related to the modern history of the Levantine area. An issue, the fact that the Mandate for Palestine relates to mandate-era Palestine as well as Transjordan, has already been raised. I very much doubt that there wouldn't be enough material for a separate article on the League of Nations act. After all, we already have a separate article for the Balfour Declaration, which took less time to produce and involved fewer actors. I'm currently reading a book which devotes about forty pages just to the manoeuvrings that led up to the granting of the mandates for that area.     ←   ZScarpia   19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@ZScarpia, i respect your opinion - if you wish to expand the legal basis / legal act section into a full article, supported by sources, i will be in favor of the move.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

First step: let's write an introductory sentence which is factually correct and expressed in plain English. As a guide, here's how the article stood about a year ago. The opening sentence reads: "The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923."     ←   ZScarpia   22:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia, look at the older version of the article (2009) [4], it clearly says the "mandate was founded" Mandate was "created", relating to geopolitic formation, not the legal act. Same the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon is described in the lead section as "founded". The main idea of the merge was "Merge, and possibly rename and demerge". Large majority of editors agreed on the first step and currently we have to decide whether to rename and what section/sections to demerge. I think we should now decide the future structure first and later to adjust the lead sections. My suggestion is the following:

British Mandate Palestine - this article, describing the geopolitic formation (country), including a section on Transjordan (new section "countries created during the Mandate").

"British Mandate for Palestine (Legaue of Nations act)" - new article describing the mandate of nations (documents and its legal implications). This would be an expansion of the "legal basis" section of this article.

Possible third article "History of Mandatory Palestine" - may be expansion of the history section in the future, but it might be redundant at this stage, because the article is 133Kb, so there is currently no full justification to split more articles.

I would be glad to hear your ideas.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that, in carrying out a merge, what you had consensus for was to merge the articles as they stood? Why are you referring back to 2009 for a version of the article which, in any case, doesn't indisputably mean what you say it means? The version you're referring to does not "clearly say" that "the mandate was founded". That version of the article says: "the Palestine Mandate, sometimes referred to as the The Mandate for Palestine, the British Mandate for Palestine, or the British Mandate of Palestine, was a League of Nations Mandate that had been created by the Principle Allied and Associated Powers after the First World War." The meaning of the sentence is ambiguous, the capitalisation dodgy and it claims equivalency for names which aren't equivalent. Looking at the meaning: the League of Nations mandate article says that a League of Nations mandate "was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League." So, substituting, one way of interpreting the first sentence of that 2009 version of the current article is: the Palestine Mandate ... was a legal status or instrument that had been created by the Principle Allied and Associated Powers after the First World War. So, the sentence doesn't necessarily have the clear meaning that you claimed it did, doesn't it? In the French mandate article that you've pointed to, there is, again, a confusion of terms: the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon was the official title for the authorisation granted by the League of Nations to France to govern, as mandatory, Syria and the Lebanon; the mandate of Syria is and was one of the names used to refer to the mandate territory of Syria (others include Syria, Mandate Syria, the Syrian mandate).

Clearly, we have a difference of opinion: you think that the British Mandate for Palestine is a term used as a name for a mandate act and a mandate territory; I think that it is a proper name only for a mandate act. I suggest that we refer to one of more editors whose expertise on the subject we both recognise for an adjudication. I would also say that it would be better for the article if neither of us was editing here rather than that we both remain, so I would suggest that we come to a gentlemen's agreement whereby we both absent ourselves from the article and its talk page.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of the semanthics, thus i give no more proposals for further progress on "merge, and later rename and demerge" (I feel to spend enough time on this article already). Anyone is welcome to give any structural proposal and develop it into an organized procedure of rename and/or demerge, with an ability to have an orginized vote - consensus wins. I will passively continue my participation on this page with short remarks. Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Article split

Well, I think the task here is to define the scope of this article and as pointed out by ZScarpia to decide on the most rational structure for the set of articles relating to the history of the Levantine area during the mandate era. Greyshark has made a proposal. I disagree with his plan because I do not think it resolves the main problem with the current article - that it discusses three different concepts; British Mandate for Palestine (the legal instrument), Mandate Palestine(The whole area subject to the mandate act), and Palestine (one of two territories that were created under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine act and associated Transjordan memorandum). I think the switching between these concepts without ever explicitly explaining the difference leads to confusion among editors and also is very misleading for readers. A further issue I have with Greysharks plan is that it envisages an article, "British Mandate Palestine" which purports to describe a single "geopolitical formation (country)" that covered the whole area subject to the terms of the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Taken as a whole (during the mandate period), I think this area had few, if any, of the attributes normally associated with a single country. Taken individually the two territories created under the provisions of the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), did each have many of the attributes of separate geopolitical formations (or coutries) e.g. separate seats of government, separate immigration policies, separate citizenship laws, separate demographics, separate education systems, separate political, historical and economic situations etc. ect. It is for these reasons I support the alternative proposal. Essentially a single article for the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), and one for each of the two territories established under the provisions of the LoN legal instrument:- "Palestine under/during the British Mandate" and Transjordan(which already exists). All articles will make clear that both territories were created under the terms of single mandate act at the League of Nations. I am interested to know if there is any form of consensus behind either of the alternative proposals. Dlv999 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be Rough consensus for what you are proposing. Two key points remain open:

• (1) Name of articles - please could editors provide their preferred names so we can measure consensus
• (2) Scope of article about Mandate Palestine as a political entity - the weight of evidence above has been brought to support the position that TransJordan was never part of the political entity of Mandate Palestine. To balance this, please could those editors who believe TransJordan is relevant to the politicial entity (i.e. not just to the legal instrument) please explain their position?

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no disagreement between us, there is only a misunderstanding of yours that British Mandate was initially covering both CisJordan and Transjordan (1923), later Transjordan becoming an autonomous Emirate (1928), and finally a state (1946), so eventually (1947) Mandatory territory was reduced to only CisJordan / Western Palestine. The last version of Mandatory Palestine (1947) was later split (1948-1949) into Israel, Gaza Strip under Egypt (All-Palestine Government) and West Bank annexed to Jordan. It is all a matter of timing, but neverthelessw Mandatory Palestine was one continuous entity (1923-1948), not two "Palestines".Greyshark09 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would make the most sense to first organize this article in chronological order. First a section about the instrument, then a section about its implementation, then sections about Palestine and Transjordan. Then it would be easy to split off sections into their own articles if they are large enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, you have highlighted the key difference of opinion between the various editors in this discussion. Can you please explain a few of your points more:

• "British Mandate was initially covering both CisJordan and Transjordan (1923)" - do you mean from a legal perspective only? Or are you saying they were part of the same polity? If the latter, in what sense are you referring to?
• "later Transjordan becoming an autonomous Emirate (1928), and finally a state (1946)" - those dates are correct, but Transjordan was already ruled autonomously from Palestine proper so what exactly changed that is relevant to this discussion?

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, i'm quitting my active participation in this discussion and on this page. See above farewell remarks of mine and ZScarpia's. I might add my oppose/neutral/support on relevant proposals in the future, but i see no point in further championing my opinions regarding this issue. Good luck here - hope you manage it without us.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In Greyshark's absence, could the other editor who has espoused a similar view (Hertz) answer these questions? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have another idea. Could you please provide a reliable secondary source that supports the line of thinking you have so far only supplied your OR and SYNTH for? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fight or a game. I have asked some thoughtful and constructive questions. You are welcome to answer them. I suggest you take the time to review the sources above first. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NNMNG-Just to clarify, what exactly are you disputing here? Are you of the opinion that Transjordan and Palestine were a single polity during the mandate era? If so, during which years exactly do you consider that there was a single polity covering Transjordan and Palestine, and what is your rationale and evidence for this? On my part, I have been doing a little reading on the situation in Transjordan during the early 1920's. From the sources I have consulted, it seems pretty clear that there was never anything remotely resembling a single polity covering both Tranjordan and Palestine during that time. I have documented some of the relevant passages and sources that have lead me to this conclusion on my userspace if anyone is interested.[5] Dlv999 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am arguing that Transjordan was part of the Mandate until it gained independence, albeit a part with considerable autonomy. I have yet to see a source that contradicts this. I have seen a lot of interpretation of primary sources and other such OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "part of the Mandate" and "considerable autonomy". The sources are abundantly clear. The best one I have seen is Norman Bentwich's England in Palestine - see chapters on "The Autonomy of Transjordan" and "The Government of Transjordan", and most clearly this from p51-52: "p51 (Civil Administration): "The High Commissioner had ... only been in office a few days when Emir Faisal ... had to flee his kingdom" and "The departure of Faisal and the breaking up of the Emirate of Syria left the territory on the east side of Jordan in a puzzling state of detachment. It was for a time no-man's-land. In the Ottoman regime the territory was attached to the Vilayet of Damascus; under the Military Administration it had been treated a part of the eastern occupied territory which was governed from Damascus; but it was now impossible that that subordination should continue, and its natural attachment was with Palestine. The territory was, indeed, included in the Mandated territory of Palestine, but difficult issues were involved as to application there of the clauses of the Mandate concerning the jewish National Home. The undertakings given to the Arabs as to the autonomous Arab region included the territory. Lastly, His Majesty's Government were unwilling to embark on any definite commitment, and vetoed any entry into the territory by the troops. The Arabs were therefore left to work out their destiny.". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Because he had gained a following, the British decided to recognize his leadership in that territory and provide him with a subsidy in exchange for his not pursuing his original Damascus intentions. This arrangement was confirmed in a March 27, 1921, meeting between then colonial secretary, Winston Churchill, and Amir Abdullah. In addition, Jordan was officially removed from Britain's Palestine mandate and given a mandate status of its own. (pg 45-46) Gruber, Peter (1991) Historical Dictionary of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

In return for providing a rudimentary administration and obviating the need for British military occupation, Abdullah in March 1921 gained assurance from Churchhill, then Colonial Secretary, that no Jews would be allowed to settle in Transjordan. That guarantee effectively created Transjordan as an Arab country apart from Palestine, where the British commitment to a 'national home' remained a delicate problem between Abdullah and the British. (pg 348) Roger Louis, William (1985)The British Empire in the Middle East Dlv999 (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Except for Gruber (who is he by the way?), the other sources don't say that Transjordan was "officially removed from Britain's Palestine mandate and given a mandate status of its own", including the two other sources you guys provided. Or any other source I've seen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To try to move the conversation forward a little, are you at least willing to accept that there was never a single polity that included both Palestine and Transjordan during the Mandate era. If you are not then could you please tell us the exact years you believe there was a single polity, your reasoning and secondary sources to justify your position. (I am trying to understand your exact position to see how much we disagree on the actual facts and how much it is just a disagreement over the semantics). Dlv999 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "polity" here. Transjordan was not an independent state until 1946. Who governed it? Under what instrument? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The current article claims "The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the Mandate for Palestine,[1] was a geopolitic polity", unless anyone can provide reliable sources to back up this claim I suggest it is altered to something that more accurately reflects the RS that we have provided. As for the government of Transjordan, this source discusses Adullah's early rule:-

On 11 April 1921 he formed his first government. The newly appointed central administration was mainly staffed by Arab nationalist exiles. The first government was composed of four Syrians, a Palestinian, a Hijazi and only one native Transjordanian. The British offered financial assistance, administrative guidance and military support from Palestine upon request and maintained a watchful position. The sole organised and effective military force at hand was a Hijazi household army of some 200 men under Hashemite command. Peake’s Reserve Force was still under construction and dysfunctional.(pg 40) an improved attitude of the Palestine government towards the independent administration of the country, contributed to the stabilisation of Transjordan and the subjugation of the settled tribes to the government’s authority. More importantly, the resurrection of the Reserve Force, later renamed the Arab Legion, allowed for this success. (pg 49) Thus, in the summer of 1922, the government managed to gain the submission of the settled and semi-settled tribes. Peake and Philby reported on the satisfactory collection of taxes and good public order.45 Macan Abu Nowar asserts that, as early as August 1922, Abdullah could already point to several achievements in the process of state-building. His government maintained law and order, improved tax-collection, opened new schools and clinics, built roads, established telegraph and post office services and created sharci and civil courts. Alon, Yoav (2009) The Making of Jordan: Tribes, Colonialism and the Modern State. No one is denying that both Tranjordan and Palestine were subject to the terms of the Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). The point is that the terms of that instrument and the associated Transjordan Memorandum allowed for the creation of two separate political entities, Tranjordan and Palestine. The secondary sources that I have consulted make it abundantly clear that there was never any single entity, single government, or any other feature that would indicate that there was a single polity covering Palestine and Transjordan. I have documented further sources here[6] Dlv999 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, can you please answer the questions you have been asked? We have brought copious amounts of RS into this debate, and you have ignored them (please discontinue the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT), you have brought no RS of your own, and you have not adequately explained your position. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have explained my position quite clearly. There was a Mandate for Palestine. It included territories both east and west of the Jordan River. The eastern part, known at the time as Transjordan, was never removed from the mandate although it did have considerable autonomy.

Regarding the "polity", I don't know who put that there or what exactly it's supposed to mean, and I have no problem with someone rewording the sentence as long as it doesn't try to imply that Transjordan somehow ceased to be part of the mandate without an explicit act by anyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your use of the words "quite clearly" used some artistic license! Sounds like we're done here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Another source here which sets out the position very well: "In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarising the conclusions of the [San Remo] conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be added to the Palestine mandate, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the Palestine mandate would not apply there. Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement." Bernard Wasserstein, Israel and Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Demerger and Names

We've been in this debate for a long time, but after some more slow progress it feels like there is rough consensus for a demerger - I have seen a number of editors in strong support but few if any strongly opposing. If anyone disagrees please shout, and we can do a formal RfC.

To avoid the situation reverting to where it was before the merger, many editors have voiced support for article names which are very clear. My preference is below - grateful for comments:

• British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)
• Palestine (British Mandate state)

The choice of the latter is because the official name of the state was simply Palestine - this can be seen from banknotes, coins, passports and citizenship documents. Any comments?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My only objection to a demerge is that I think it's premature. Don't let that stop anyone who wants to give it a go though.

If we do demrge, I think it would make sense to call the articles

• British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)
• British Mandate for Palestine (territory) which could be split to
  • British Mandate for Palestine (territory of Palestine)
  • British Mandate for Palestine (territory of Transjordan)

That way we have some consistency between the names of the related articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It seems from your post and the discussions above that we have consensus for British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). If no objections, I will create that article and demerge the relevant content. That will leave us with one open issue - we will then be able to have a full RFC about the renaming and scope of the two territory-related articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the demerge and the the structure and names proposed by Oncenawhile for the reasons already discussed at some length in the thread above. In my view it would be preferable to come to a decision on the matter sooner rather than later as it is difficult to move forward with the article without first making a decision on its scope. The main issues I see with nmmng's plan are:-

• The term "British Mandate for Palestine" refers to a League of Nations legal instrument not a territory.
• From the sources I have consulted there does not seem to be any evidence supporting the idea that there was ever a single territory that covered Palestine and Transjordan during the mandate era[7].
• Palestine (British Mandate state) easily has enough content to for a single article, whole volumes have been written on the topic, as they have been on Transjordan during the mandate era. It makes little sense to me to try to fit them into the same article. Both in terms of length, but also in terms of devising a rational article structure considering how little overlap there is between the historical situations in the two territories.
• If Tranjordan and Palestine during the mandate era each have a separate article (which I believe they must), what we are left with under NMMNG proposal is two "British Mandate for Palestine" articles (one legal instrument and one territory). I cannot see what unique content will be in the "British Mandate for Palestine (territory)" article that will not already be covered in the individual territory articles and the legal instrument article. We are risking going back to the situation where we have two identical (or very similar) articles.

Despite these reservations I do think nmmng's plan would be an improvement on the current state of affairs as it would help to resolve the main problem I have with article; the conflation of the legal instrument, the whole area (including Palestine and Transjordan) subject to the terms of the legal instrument and the territory of Palestine (west of the Jordan). Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started the demerger. Suggestions gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, good work on the demerger. I think the sooner we turn our attention to the outstanding matter of the name and the lead of this article the better. In my view the current title and lead simply do not accurately reflect the article's content. Dlv999 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please could all interested editors take a look at the demerged article British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). It still needs some cleaning up, particularly some cleaning up of duplicated information, but input at this stage would be very helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)