Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Changing section on jewish reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Description of Resolution

1 Resolutions of the General Assembly are adopted not passed.

2 Below is the key wording of the resolution: it is a recommendation:-

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trahelliven (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC) sorry I forgot to sign it.Trahelliven(talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Aren't all General Assembly resolutions recommendations?

At any rate, even if it is important for us to tell readers that it was a recommendation (I am skeptical) surely this does not belong in the lede. The first priority has to be telling readers what the partition plan called for. I am generally strongly against putting anything in the lede that detracts from first time reader intelligibility. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Aren't all General Assembly resolutions recommendations? The short answer is No. When a state is admmitted by the General Assembly, at least in the admission of Yemen and Pakistan in 1947, the operative words were Decides to admit (108 II).http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm. I have not checked further resolutions in the list.

To say that the General Assembly passed it (meaning the plan) is not quite what the resolution said. A first time reader in the present case might be led to believe that the resolution was more than a recommendation.

The correct title of the plan was Plan of Partition with Economic Union; it shoul be described as such.Trahelliven(talk) 10:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the short answer is yes except for admitting new members which requires a Security Council resolution first. It's all explained in the UN Charter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To No More Mr Nice Guy

Jsolinsky Aren't all General Assembly resolutions recommendations?

No More Mr Nice Guy Actually, the short answer is yes except for admitting new members which requires a Security Council resolution first. It's all explained in the UN Charter.

Trahelliven The short answer is stiil NO: Resolutions 117(II), 125(II), 148(II), 149(II), and 150(II), none are recommendations. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm Trahelliven(talk) 16:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For completeness, perhaps I should have noted that none of the resolutions listed deal with the admission of a state to the UN. Trahelliven(talk) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone assist me? The reference at the end of the first paragraph in the lede is a cumbersome way to the text of Resolution 181(II). To the immediate right appears an easier way of accessing the Resolution - Code: A/RES/181(II) (Document). Could someone assist me in substituting the reference with what appears to be the easier access? I apologise for my technical incompetence. Thanks. Trahelliven(talk) 16:66, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the ref with a direct link to the resolution. If you're using firefox, you can use the cite4wiki addon which makes a nicely formatted ref. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy. Thanks. Trahelliven(talk) 16:66, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Implementation of the plan

The article as it stands has a glaring omission. Was it ever implemented? I have tried to make my answer to that question as bland as possible. I would have thought that the history of the area of the former Mandate gives the answer. I have therefore, in breach of all the rules, not attempted to give any reference though I am sure that others might find one. Has anyone got any suggestions:

1 Can anyone find an appropriate reference?

2 Can it can be expanded without endless edits and reverts?

3 Is it simply fatuous to insert a section along these lines? Trahelliven (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of situations in which obvious facts are included without a reference. They only get removed if something is challenged. As things stand, we have clearly explained the plain. What came to pass is different. Therefore, it is plain that the plan never came to pass. I have moved it back into the introduction where I think it belongs. (Also, a section with only this one fact seems a little unnecessary) Jsolinsky (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Trahelliven (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If not stating as clearly as you suggested that "the plan was not implemented", several sources emphasized that the British gave back their Mandate in expetecting that the UN would ask them not to give this back and that would permit them to use "stronger" methods against the Jewish revolt. Sources also points out that after the UNO voted the plan, they didn't collaborate to the its implementation, eg in refusing to the administrators of the UNO to start their job in Jerusalem. In February '48 they also supported the annexation of the Arab side of Palestine by Transjordan. So, it should be reasonnable to write that at least the British didn't collaborate to the implementation of the Partition plan. 81.247.89.201 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should definitely indicate that the British were unhelpful. It does presently say this: "Britain refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period or to assist in smoothly handing over territory or authority to any successor."

I think that, given the recent discussion, the article is likely to be extended into the parties behavior during the civil war period (to the extent it has direct bearing on the implementation or non-implementation of the partition). That would necessarily include the actions of the British.

That said, I'd like to see any references suggesting that the British wanted a free hand to use "stronger" methods. There are an awful lot of references indicating that the British desperately wanted out of Palestine. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about the British actions with regards to the PP a few months back. I'm pretty sure it was on this talk page. I'll have a look later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. It's a bit hard to follow as a certain editor who's now topic banned "participated" in it, but there are some good sources and comments in there for anyone who wants to dig them up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point and highlights the fact that the lede is misleading. It suggests that the approved plan led smoothly to the Israeli declaration, ignoring the important facts that being the UNGA (not the UNSC) the resolution was non binding, that the UNSC declined to vote on it (see comments by Warren Austin), instead making attempts to diffuse the fighting (see United Nations Security Council Resolution 42) and that this was all followed by the Truman Trusteeship proposal. These facts are well covered in the scholarly literature and should be summarised here. See e.g. here. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the intro says that "Immediately after UN adoption of the Resolution, the Civil War broke out" and "The partition plan was never fully implemented." That's about what I'd expect. I agree that it needs to be supplemented with more detail in the body. But I'm not sure what else we would put on top. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree - those two sentences are quite enough. I have moved the other sentences down to a "subsequent events" section, which needs completion. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jsolinsky : you are right that numerous (if not all) sources state that the British wanted to leave (reasons given were that the cost of maintaining order in Palestine was astronomic and that British public opinion didn't understand that "boys" were dying over there). I am quite sure that Tom Segev, in One Palestine. Complete explains (or assumes ?) that the British didn't collaborate with UN because they were frustrated not to have received the support of the AG that would have enabled them to use against Jews (read LHI and IZL) the same methods as the ones they had used against Arabs in 36-39.

In any case, I don't think it is that much important and should be in ther article. 91.180.117.27 (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Once: I don't think that the new lede is a net improvement over the old lede (although I DO think that the addition of the new body section is an improvement, and will likely prove the first stage in an even larger improvement). I agree that the British declaration of termination and evacuation can be removed from the lede. BUT, I think that the establishment of Israel, and the 1948 war should be present, as these were amongst the most important outcomes. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The creation of Israel and the Arab invasion are connected to the plan not being implemented. I also think that the fact the British left rather than tried to implement the plan is also important for the lead. Not sure how to summarize all those things in a couple of sentences, though. By the way, saying the plan was "never fully implemented" implies it was partially implemented which I don't think is correct. It wasn't implemented full stop. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Trahelliven (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jsolinsky, I am happy with your proposal - i.e. that there should be mention of the creation of Israel in the lede. As NMMNG rightly says, it'll be difficult to get the wording right because a lot happened in between (including a reversal of US policy) and ignoring that would incorrectly imply that one thing led directly to the other. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Truman trusteeship proposal

A deletion discussion is ongoing regarding the subsequent event in international diplomacy following the Partition Plan - please could all interested editors kindly contribute to the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truman trusteeship proposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Myth

Simha Flapan wrote that it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.

What it this statement supposed to mean? This is completly contradictory with the rest of the article. So its upon the reader to decide whether the Jews accepted the resolution and whether the Arabs rejected it? StoneProphet (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As an indication of a revisionist current? -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully of some use in throwing light on Flapan's statement, sources and extracts from sources which address Arab and Jewish reactions to partition in more detail:

Palestine Post. 15 Jul 1937. David Ben-Gurion. The Jews.

Avi Shlaim, The Debate About 1948, from The Israel/Palestine Question (edited by Ilan Pappé): p162 - "It is true that all the Arab states, with the exception of Jordan, rejected the UN partition plan. It is true that seven Arab armies invaded Palestine the morning after the State of Israel was proclaimed. It is true that the invasion was accompanied by blood-curdling rhetoric and threats to throw the Jews into the sea. It is true that in addition to the regular Arab armies and the Mufti’s Holy War army, various groups of volunteers arrived in Palestine, the most important of which was the Arab Liberation Army, sponsored by the Arab League and led by the Syrian adventurer Fawzi al-Qawuqji. More importantly, it is true that the military experts of the Arab League had worked out a unified plan for the invasion and that this plan was all the more dangerous for having had more limited and realistic objectives than those implied by the wild Pan-Arab rhetoric. But King Abdullah, who was given nominal command over all the Arab forces in Palestine, wrecked this plan by making last-minute changes. His objective in sending his army into Palestine was not to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, but to make himself master of the Arab part of Palestine, which meant preventing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state."

Mike Berry and Greg Philo, Israel and Palestine Competing Histories:
p13ff - Ben-Gurion's position in the wake of Peel Commision: "The Peel Commission proposed that the north-west part of Palestine, accounting for 20 per cent of the country though containing its most fertile land, would become a Jewish state, while the remaining 80 per cent would become an Arab state linked to Transjordan. A corridor to the sea would remain under British control, as would Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The proposal received a mixed reception among Jews. One group, centred on Jabotinsky’s Revisionists, argued that a Jewish state should only be set up in the whole of Palestine and Transjordan. Another, which included Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, argued that this was a historic opportunity to create the Jewish state. The Israeli historian Simha Flapan suggests that Ben-Gurion accepted the plan as a stepping stone to Zionist control of all of Palestine, and points to comments he made before the Zionist executive in 1937 that: ‘after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine’ (Ben-Gurion, cited in Flapan, 1987: 22). The Israeli historian and Ha’aretz columnist Tom Segev (2001) suggests that for Ben-Gurion the proposal (inherent in the Peel recommendations) for the ‘forced transfer’ of the Arab inhabitants out of the proposed Jewish state, and the creation therefore of a ‘really Jewish’ state, outweighed all the drawbacks of the proposal."
p24 - 1947: "Gilbert (1999) suggests they were also wary of alienating Arab opinion because they were concerned to protect their oil interests in the region. The foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, perhaps with this in mind, indicted that he favoured ‘an independent unitary State in Palestine, with special rights for the Jewish minority, but incorporating as much as possible of the Arab plan’ (cited in Gilbert, 1999: 142). Bevin also argued that a Zionist government in Palestine would be unlikely to accept any partition as fi nal but would sooner or later seek to expand its borders. Arab hostility to the Zionist project, he predicted, might lead to long-term instability in the region: ‘If Jewish irredentism is likely to develop after an interval, Arab irredentism is certain from the outset. Thus the existence of a Jewish State might prove a constant factor of unrest in the Middle East’ (cited in Gilbert, 1999: 142). In February 1947 the British decided to end the mandate and hand the question of Palestine to the United Nations."
p25 - "The Arab states as well as a number of others indicated that they did not consider themselves bound by the resolution as they argued it violated the terms of the UN Charter (United Nations, 1990)."
p27 - "The reaction of the Zionist leadership is more contested. Some historians, such as Bregman (2003), argue that the partition resolution was seen as a triumph because it allowed for the creation of a Jewish state in an area three times that recommended by the Peel plan ten years earlier. Shlaim claims that the reaction was more ambivalent. He suggests that it was accepted by most Zionist leaders with a ‘heavy heart’ because they ‘did not like the idea of an independent Palestinian state, they were disappointed with the exclusion of Jerusalem, and they had grave doubts about the viability of the State within the UN borders’ (2000: 25). He notes that it was dismissed out of hand by Jewish paramilitary groups, who demanded all of Palestine for the Jewish state. Gilbert suggests that the Zionist leadership realised that war was inevitable and that Ben-Gurion ‘contemplated the possibility of fi ghting to extend the area allotted to the Jews’ (1999: 149). Gilbert cites orders from Ben-Gurion that Jewish forces should ‘safeguard the entire Yishuv [Jewish community in Palestine] and settlements (wherever they may be), to conquer the whole country or most of it, and to maintain its occupation until the attainment of an authoritative political settlement’ (Ben-Gurion, cited in Gilbert, 1999: 149). Hirst (1977) suggests that the partition plan was accepted by the Zionists because they anticipated they would quickly be able militarily to overwhelm the Arabs, and unilaterally expand the borders of the Jewish state."
p28 - "The UN partition plan did not solve the problems in Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee rejected it outright and called a three-day strike. The Mufti of Jerusalem announced a jihad or struggle for Jerusalem. Fighting between the two communities broke out in early December 1947, and the situation quickly deteriorated into a civil war in which both sides attacked civilian as well as military targets (Gilbert, 1999)."
p28 - "In early April, Zionist forces launched a major offensive code named Plan Dalet. According to Avi Shlaim, the aim of Plan Dalet was ‘to secure all the areas allocated to the Israeli state under the UN partition resolution as well as Jewish settlements outside these areas and corridors leading to them’ (2000: 31). Arab towns and cities were captured and their populations removed so as ‘to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements’ in anticipation of an attack by the combined armies of the neighbouring Arab states (2000: 31)."
p31 - "The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state, because Ben-Gurion wanted to keep open the possibility of expansion beyond the UN borders."
p35ff - "A third UN truce came into effect on 31 October, which lasted until 22 December, when Israel again broke the truce by launching Operation Horev. This was highly successful, with the Israeli army driving the Egyptians out of the Negev and following it into Egypt proper. Eventually Britain intervened on the Egyptian side under the terms of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, and after forceful pressure from President Truman Ben- Gurion agreed to withdraw his troops from the Sinai and accept a new truce."

Encyclopedia of the Palestinians (2005), Abdullah and the Zionists, p7 -

"The irreconcilable conflict

between the Arab and Jewish national movements in Palestine provided the setting for the emergence of the special relationship between the Hashemite emir and the Jewish Agency. The two sides had a common protector, Britain, and a common enemy, al-Hajj Amin AL-HUSAYNI, the mufti (Islamic law expert) of Jerusalem and the leader of the Palestinians. Al-Hajj Amin had not only opposed the Zionist movement, but was also Abdullah’s principal rival for the loyalty of the Palestinians and for

the control of Palestine."

"It was not until

1937, when the PEEL COMMISSION suggested that Palestine might be partitioned and that Abdullah might rule the Arab part, that Palestine became

the main focus of Abdullah’s territorial ambition."

"During World War II, Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni

threw in his lot with Nazi Germany; Abdullah and the Zionists remained loyal to Britain. Britain rewarded Abdullah for his loyalty by conferring formal independence on the Mandated territory of Transjordan in March 1946. The Zionists, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, intensified the struggle for a state of their own. However, they needed an Arab leader willing to accept a partition of Palestine and to live in peace with a Jewish state; King Abdullah appeared to be the only ruler prepared

to accept the partition of Palestine."

Richard Forer - Commit Yourself To The Truth, Cutting Through the Confusion About Israel/Palestine (1, 2), 22 June 2010:

Here is what Morris (who is a Zionist and believes that Palestinians are 'psychopaths' and 'serial killers') says in Righteous Victims, p.138:

[Weizmann and Ben-Gurion] saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine... [Ben-Gurion] wrote to his son, Amos: ‘[A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state ... will serve as a very potent lever in our efforts to redeem the whole country.

The above passage by Ben-Gurion expresses a common intention that he and the majority of Zionists shared for more than a decade before 1948. Confirmation of this can be found in many books on the subject.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) (11:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC): expanded introductory sentence)

That's nice; however, I didn't bother to read any further down than the passage where there was conflation and confusion between the reaction to the 1937 Peel plan and the reaction to the 1947 United Nations plan (two very different plans offered ten years apart under very different circumstances) -- since it has been pointed out repeatedly on these article talk pages that blurring of the differences between 1937 and 1947 is not a constructive or productive strategy (since it has not and will not result in useful article improvements). Meanwhile, in ca. December 1947 the Jewish and Arab leaderships publicly conveyed acceptance and rejection respectively to the United Nations through their recognized community institutions (the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee etc.). There can be various commentaries on and explanations of this fact (if they are sourced and relevant), but this must remain as the factual starting point... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty much the answer that I anticipated you'd give (in the tone that I expected). Note that I did say that the sources discussed reactions to "partition", not "The UN Partition Plan". Despite the fact that some of the extracts talk about reactions to the 1937 Plan, they do throw light on the general attitude of Jewish leaders to partition and on the question that was asked here about the quote from Flapan. Any "conflation and confusion" being performed, is entirely a product of your reading, I think. You wrote: "Meanwhile, in ca. December 1947 the Jewish and Arab leaderships publicly conveyed acceptance and rejection respectively to the United Nations through their recognized community institutions (the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee etc.)." The extracts contradict that and, as you know, if reliable sources contradict each other, you cannot present what they say as statements of fact, but as statements of points of view. That assumes that any sources you may present which support what you have said are accepted as reliable. Personally, I would say that any source which supports what you have said is over-simplistic and shouldn't be accepted as reliable on the matter of reactions to the Partition Plan. One thing to note is that indications of acceptance or rejection were not asked for and that whether the Partition Plan was implemented or not did not depend on them. Also, there were more sources of leadership on the Jewish and Arab sides than the two you indicate and the others also expressed opinions about the Plan.     ←   ZScarpia   18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

However, this article is about the 1947 partition plan specifically (not partition generally). Therefore information about 1937 should only be included if there's relevant useful evidence that attitudes about the 1937 plan carried over to attitudes about the 1947 plan. Any addition to the article of material about attitudes towards the 1937 plan, without accompanying valid specific information linking 1937 to 1947, would be ipso facto "conflation and confusion"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody, as yet, has suggested adding anything to the article. Though, as far as including material goes, if sources discussed reactions to the Peel Plan in relation to the UN Partition Plan, that would make what they said a candidate for inclusion.     ←   ZScarpia   18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonmoos, I recommend you read the other quoted sources, too. --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I have little interest in doing so -- ZScarpia has been around these article talk pages long enough to be very well aware that many are of the opinion that such 1937 Peel Plan material is effectively irrelevant to the 1947 plan; and long enough to have observed that raising such 1937 Peel Plan stuff on article talk pages never results in practical significant improvement of 1947 articles -- yet ZScarpia freely and voluntarily chose to drink the 1937 Peel Plan kool-aide, and raise the issue yet again without much realistic prospect of a different outcome than the previous discussions here... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the game plan. If you bring up the same issue over and over, maybe one day you'll have enough people supporting your revisionist interpretation of history to get it put in the article. Then the ball is in the court of those who want to remove it. There's no other reason for someone who, as you correctly observe, has seen and participated in this same discussion multiple times without getting the results he wants to bring it up yet again. Trying to fuzz the difference between the 1937 and 1947 partition plans might get someone who doesn't know enough about the issues to support said revisionist interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence justifying each of your points. Alternatively, strike out your comment.     ←   ZScarpia   11:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonmoos, sorry I was under the impression that you meant to disagree with ZScarpia. If you only meant to comment on one of the sources, that's of course fine. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything he asserted, because his introduction of the Ben Gurion 1937 Peel Plan quote on the talk page of an 1947 article is a tiresome and tedious unconstructive maneuver which abruptly cut short any consideration by me of the remainder of his remarks. ZScarpia has been on these middle-east article talk pages long enough to be quite well aware that it was unconstructive thing to do (i.e. unlikely to lead to any different results than the last several times it was done), but he chose to indulge himself anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that by inserting a dividing line before my comment you're altering it's apparent purpose? My comment was a response to the question raised about the statement sourced from Flapan. Putting a line in makes it appear as my comment is the beginning of a new section. The reason that I didn't indent my comment was to make it clear that it is addressed to everyone. Also, you do realise that making speculative assertions about my motivations isn't the done thing, don't you?     ←   ZScarpia   11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is no disagreement, as per Anonmoos' comment timestamped 00:29, we can probably just end this discussion then. --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Final section of the article is incorrect

In particular, the final sentence of the article is simply outrageous:

"In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all."

Even if one ignores the fact that the ICJ only has a mandate to issue non-binding opinions, and the fact that the Partition Plan itself was a General Assembly Resolution and therefore a non-binding recommendation, the very text of the Partition Plan itself indicates that it is, in its entirety, a recommendation, a proposal that could only become binding if it were adopted by BOTH sides and implemented accordingly.

Due to Arab opposition, the British Mandatory refused to implement it and the Security Council refused to authorize its implementation and sent it back to the General Assembly. The General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities under UN Res. 181, disbanding it and appointing a UN Mediator who came forward with new proposals designed to supersede the recommendations in the original Partition Plan. These too did not come to fruition.

A number of legal scholars, e.g. Judge Lauterpacht and Prof. Julius Stone, have given legal arguments which further demonstrate why the Partition Plan has no legal validity in international law.

Excerpts from these, and a number of statements on the matter from UN bodies, can be found in the link below.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

For instance, A July 30, 1949 working paper of the UN Secretariat entitled "The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition" noted that:

“The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety.”

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.103.101 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on the substance (it certainly seems to be a very odd legal interpretation according to which the Arabs reap all the benefits of a proposed agreement without having agreed to it, or having obeyed any of its obligations, such as open trade and preserving the holy places of all religions). However, if various notable people or somewhat reputable academics have claimed that it supposedly does have some binding legal force, then those opinions can be reported in this article (but not presented as uncontested fact). AnonMoos (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. The text says that de Waart said so, not that the case would be so. --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

... except in tha the "Arabs reap all the benefits", since the validity of UN resolution implies a legal validity to Israel's existence, which is a Zionist "reap". --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

According to such interpretations, they would reap all benefits originally offered by the 1947 plan (not attain their maximalistic goals or daydreams)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the original legal status of Resolution 181, it is arguable that by the morning of 15 May 1948, it was dead:-

1 The Arabs had rejected it.

2 Despite the phrase ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY in the Declaration of 14 May 1948 [1], contrary to Resolution 181 [2] the Jewish People's Council purportrd to declare the establisment of the new state less than two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed (PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION: PART I: Future constitution and government of Palestine: TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE: Clause 3.).

3 The Declaration did not restrict the area of the new state to that set out for the Jewish State in PART II of the Resolution.

2 and 3 amounted to a rejection of Resolution 181.

Nevertheless by refering, in the letter to President Truman [3], to frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, the new state was in some sense still limiting its boundaries. Trahelliven (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This has all been gone through in past discussions. The way that the British withdrew (in a cynical "law of the jungle" manner, without formally handing over sovereignty to anybody, and without effective United Nations control or supervision) meant that in May 1948, UNGA 181 was almost the only existing internationally-adopted document on which to base Israeli statehood, and some outside the region had not entirely given up on implementing UNGA 181, so early Israeli declarations or communications were bound to make references to UNGA 181, and to avoid giving the impression that the Israelis were the ones who were obstructing any remaining possibility of its implementation. However, these considerations became rapidly irrelevant as the military and diplomatic situations drastically changed. It certainly did not mean that Israel unilaterally accepted to be bound by all obligations of UNGA 181 (regardless of what the Arabs did), as one past participant in these talk page discussions relentlessly claimed (thereby leading to many tens of thousands of bytes of acrimonious talk page discussions with no corresponding article improvement)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Simha Flapan myth claims

"Simha Flapan called it a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace and that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war."

I have moved this to the talk page for discussion. I'm hoping other people can give their opinion about this statement under the "Jewish reaction" section. I think it violates WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE and also doesn't seem appropriate to be under the Jewish reaction section in the first place. Also it doesn't give any detail about why he calls these things myths, contrary to all the other info we have in the article. Thoughts? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the long discussion above? The text should be added back in, while it is being discussed. It is certainly not a fringe opinion, so what else would you like to add to it? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not see that discussion, thank you for letting me know. But I don't see anything particularly relevant. Nobody explained why it is not fringe or why it belongs in that section. You similarly say it is not fringe but I say it most certainly is. It goes against mainstream historical accounts of the events and that is demonstrated even in this very article. And it certainly does not deserve to be featured in the very short paragraph discussing the Jewish reaction: that is classic WP:UNDUE. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to remove it, then you need to show that it is a fringe opinion.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy. It isn't reasonable to ask somebody to prove that a claim is fringe. Rather, one must prove that an accused claim is not fringe by presenting sources which prove that it is mainstream and deserves a significant feature in the article. How do you expect me to prove that it is fringe? I have at the very least pointed out that based on the many sources we see in this article, the claim contradicts the mainstream view of the events. To me, that seems to make it fringe. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you're advancing the claim that X is fringe, then you have the burden of proof to prove this is so. This should be easy, since you must already have some reasons for saying that X is fringe. Concerning Flapan, you can read the article devoted to her to discover why she isn't fringe. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

99.237.236.218 -- It's OK where it is now in the article (though it would be better in a separate "Historiography" section). It would be highly inappropriate to put it in the lead section, or to present it as uncontested fact, rather than as the opinions of Simha Flapan, but its presence in the article is reasonable as it stands now (though it isn't actually "important", as Ding dong claimed in an edit summary)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"United Nations Regional Groups" analysis

I didn't really notice that this had crept into the article. I don't think they were known by that name in 1947, and they probably only existed in rather incipient embryonic form. I'm removing the "Members (2011)" column from the table immediately as being anachronistic and irrelevant; the rest of the table should be redone to conform with the terminology and facts of 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your first edit but not with your second - it gives readers the context that the general assembly in 1947 was very different to today's. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there actually a source that puts the vote in terms of regional groups? This is anachronistic usage of the term and would be SYNTH without a source specifically using the same terminology. Same goes for the current members. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile -- In 1947, the General Assembly had less than a third of the membership that it does today, and regional organization was informal and embryonic compared to what came later. Also, the number of members in the regional groups in 2011 is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to 1947. Do not re-add that to the table again (since the real question is whether even the cut-down table belongs in the article at all)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG's removal of Official Jewish statements in reaction to the plan

NMMNG's reversion of two areas. Reason: "QUOTEFARM , a primary source of unclear relevance, and restoring factual statement. sources to follow"[4]
1) " unclear relevance" Odd. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision - Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver (News report 34 confirmed by 35)
Unclear relevance how? The article already says "the recognized representative of the Jewish community, praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details."
I've given an official instance of that acceptance by a "recognized representative of the Jewish community" according to Policy: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
2) "factual statement" Are readers to believe Weizmann was the only person who made a statement? (completely un-sourced, yet oddly no complaint from you until I made an edit).
3) Official Statements to the UNSC on the Arab States refusal to accept the resolution

Was there no official reaction to the Arab state's refusal?

The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” - Rabbi Silver 19 March 1948 - quoting Mr. Herschel Johnson

Irrelevant how?

BTW A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.3 "Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material."
NMMNG - "sources to follow" You had no sources? talknic (talk)

A. You'd need to summarize Silver's opinion if B. he was actually in a position to make statements for the Jewish community in the Mandate or and C. quoting him extensively wasn't UNDUE.

The "factual statement" wasn't about Wiezmann, it was about the plan not being implemented. It wasn't.

We have already established that you do not understand the policy regarding primary sources and that I am unable to explain it to you, so I won't waste time on that one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- A. Uh? One can't analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source AND use a Primary Source. One can use a Primary Source sans analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating. I see you're not applying your rules to the Chaim Weizmann statement. It requires no source because?

B. If? ... Rabbi Silver replaced Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, but he wasn't a representative?

C. UNDUE? It's in the section on the Jewish Reaction to the Partition Plan. How can it be WP:UNDUE?

"the plan not being implemented. It wasn't" Really? Israel wasn't declared "ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" ? Do you have an RS Secondary Source? talknic (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "We have already established that you do not understand the policy regarding primary sources"

Apart from being an un-necessary personal affront, is it not a fact that this is Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.4 Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. talknic (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Go to google and search for "partition plan" "not implemented" you'll find several hundred sources that say it wasn't implemented. As opposed to the one source you fished for that said it was "partially realized" which is not the same thing as implemented. I'll add a source when I have a bit of time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG - A) Care to answer my question on Policy? B) And Rabbi Silver being an official representative ...thx.. much appreciated.

C)" "partially realized" which is not the same thing as implemented" Correct. That's why I didn't write "implemented"

Meanwhile the Israeli Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel says this :"AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY", I guess they got it wrong? Right?

BTW A Google result of several hundred sources or even millions, doesn't necessarily mean any of the results are WP:RS talknic (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a source for the PP not being implemented.

Like I said, you can summarize what Silver said if you want. It's already there, though. You see where it says "The Jewish Agency [...] praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details"? That's how most secondary sources summarize the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG - "I added a source for the PP not being implemented." Oh? Against your own rules?

I believe this is yours: "If in a few days there's a consensus to change the text you can do so. In the meanwhile I suggest you read WP:BRD" --- It's a discussion, which says this "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

I believe this is also yours : "DRNC is an essay, not a guideline ..." and;

I see no attempt on your part to answer a reasonable question regarding Policy: or Rabbi Silver being an official representative.

Itzhak Galnoor is contradicted by the May 15th 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, which says (in part) "... ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY"

Israel was declared as established and recognized as established and admitted into the UN after having undertaken to implement UNGA Res 181, before the war was over, before the 1949 Armistice Agreements Itzhak Galnoor misrepresents and which came before Israel claimed any territory.

"Like I said, you can summarize what Silver said if you want" Why are you repeating? I've already pointed to the Policy you you keep misrepresenting.

"It's already there" NMMNG I noticed long ago what is "already there", attributed to a source that says:"The preamble to the resolution admitting Israel to United Nations membership specifically referred to Israel’s undertakings to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II)", contradicting Itzhak Galnoor

Rather odd not to have a quote of the Jewish acceptance of UNGA res 181 by an official representative, also rather odd you're not applying your criteria to the alleged Chaim Weizmann statement talknic (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Was there a point in all that text? I don't have the time or inclination to try and decipher it. Please be more concise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Please Work towards agreement. Argue facts, not personalities. Do not make misrepresentations. Do not ignore questions Thx talknic (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what your questions were. Please state them clearly and concisely. It would help if you finally realized this is not an internet forum where you score virtual points for being "clever". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Q 1) Is this policy or not? Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.4 Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Q 2) If Rabbi Silver replaced Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, is he actually in a position to make statements for the Jewish community in the Mandate for Palestine in March 1948. Or not?

Q 3) How can it be WP:UNDUE to include an official statement or statements by such an official representative of the Jewish People?

Q 4) Does the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel say "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY". Or not?

Q 5) Was it Israel’s undertaking to implement General Assembly resolution 181 (II)[5] in order to be admitted to the UN 11 May 1949 almost a year after being declared and recognized. Or not?

Thx talknic (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Q1) That is indeed policy. What you're trying to do is exactly the kind of misuse the policy warns against. You are trying to lead the reader to believe that Israel bound itself to the Partition Plan. If that was indeed the case, please find a reliable secondary source that says so. Selectively quoting primary sources in a way that someone without "specialist knowledge" (in this case of history and international law) might misunderstand is not allowed.

Q2) See above. Find a secondary source that explains what Silver was saying.
Q3) The QUOTEFARM which you inserted constituted around 1/3 of the section. That is indeed UNDUE.
Q4) It does. So what?
Q5) I don't see how the Saul S Friendman book is relevant. If you're talking about cite #29, I don't see where it said Israel bound itself to 181. Perhaps one needs some "specialist knowledge" to make that interpretation?
To summarize, you have a theory that Israel bound itself to the partition plan. Unfortunatly, you are unable to find scholarship to support that theory so you want to use primary sources to lead a reader without "specialist knowledge" to your conclusion. That is not allowed, as I have explained to you many many times in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree cherry picking primary sources to advance certain POV is WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the primary material helped. The article has to be written up from reliable works of history by historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG Q 1)"You are trying to lead the reader to believe that Israel bound itself to the Partition Plan. " Nice try. You're trying to suppress any official statement on the Jewish Agency accepting the Partition Plan. They were verbatim quotes, allowed by Policy. There is no need for any knowledge on International Law to understand the statements. No doubt why you don't like them.

Q2)"Find a secondary source that explains what Silver was saying" Why? A primary source may be used according to Policy

Q3) You reverted everything. One can only wonder why you'd rather there are no actual official statements on the Jewish Agency's acceptance of the resolution or to the Arab rejection?

Q4)"It does. So what?" Uh? Answer me this: Why include it if UNSC res 181 was irrelevant?

Q5) My error - here corrected // The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, praised and accepted the resolution while expressing dissatisfaction with some of the details.26// says in May 1949:"The preamble to the resolution admitting Israel to United Nations membership specifically referred to Israel’s undertakings to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II)", contradicting Itzhak Galnoor talknic (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "The article has to be written up from reliable works of history by historians" Policy: talknic (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Shrike -- "I agree cherry picking primary sources to advance certain POV is WP:TE" Indeed. However I was attempting to show readers an official Statement of acceptance to the UN. The section is Jewish reaction. Yet there is no official statement to the UN? Very very hard to believe the only thing editors can come up with is one unsourced, un"quoted" alleged remark by Weizmann talknic (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully there are a couple of other editors here now so I don't have to engage with your repetitive tendentious POV pushing. I will bow out of this discussion now. As usual, do not take my silence as agreement to your proposed changes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- The Weizmann statement has no source. I have tried to give it one. I can't find anything. So the section on the Jewish reaction is to contain no official acceptance statements by the Jewish Agency, even though one could be be validly provided via Policy. Bizarre!! Compared to the Arab Reaction the article is going to look quite unbalanced talknic (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

BUMP - Can anyone answer why official acceptance of the plan by the Jewish representatives should not be included in this article other than certain editors don't like it? talknic (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical description of Resolution 181(II). Talknic's edit

Talknic A reader who sees the words, voted to adopt might very well think that the Resolution of the UNGA was binding. If the actual words of the resolution are used, that misapprehension should be avoided. To put it differently, it was the resolution that was adopted, not the Plan of Partition. I am reverting Talknic's edit. Trahelliven (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, the resolution itself says that it "Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below".

Not to mention that the source used is an anonymous document by the Division for Palestinian Rights, which I doubt is RS.

Go ahead and revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- You say "A reader who sees the words, voted to adopt might very well think that the Resolution of the UNGA was binding."

A) The wording you like already says "the General Assembly adopted", how was it adopted without a vote & exactly how does it differ in what a reader might think? C) Name one UNGA resolution adopted without a vote. D) UNGA res 181 (II) Voting Summary: Yes: 33, No: 13, Abstentions: 10, Non-Voting: 1, Total voting membership: 57. E) What was it they were voting to adopt if not UNGA res 181?

NMMNG -- "the resolution itself says..." That's in the preamble. The resolution begins at "Requests that"

This is the wording you like. "On 29 November 1947 the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II)"

Perhaps we should tell readers the name of the resolution they adopted to adopt Resolution 181 (II). Yes?

"document by the Division for Palestinian Rights, which I doubt is RS. " WP:RS in context. The vote count. Available in any number of sources. [6]

"Go ahead and revert. " Shall I add that to the list of your numerous un-necessary provocations? Or the list of your attempts to coerce an editor into contravening Policy? talknic (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Retract your accusations that I am coercing other editors or I will take you to AE immediately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- reminder. talknic (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talknic

Articles 10 and 14 repectively of the Charter of the United Nations - http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml - provide as follows:

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 10

The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.....

Article 14

Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

The powere and functions given to the UNGA under Articles 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 are wide enough enable it to adopt all of Resolution 181(II), with the exception of the key part:

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Here reliance must be placed on either Article 10 or Article 14, in each of which the power is limited to making recommendations. Trahelliven (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- I am intimately familiar with the UN Charter and recommendations. You seem to have gone off on a tangent. What was the name of the resolution they adopted to adopt Resolution 181 (II)? Because that is what the current wording implies talknic (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is indeed quite clunky. Please improve it and make it precise. There must be a good secondary source on this. There must be a standard history of the U N. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith Talknic

I agree that the wording is cumbersome, but that is parly caused by adopt (or its various forms) being used -

a) in respect of the Resolution; and

b) in respect of the Plan of Partition.

How about?

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II). In the Resolution the General Assembly recommended to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set at the foot of the Resolution. Trahelliven (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Better but still a difficult sentence. In the lead maybe just as "recommended the adoption". We could leave out who the recommendations were made to. It has to go in later on, though, because an article on a UN plan has to state all the technical details of the plan correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith

Omitting to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations does not remove a link in the logic of the sentence. I am quite happy for it not to be included. Trahelliven (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also fine. The main issue I have is that the text needs to note clearly that the resolution was a recommendation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Care to make a suggestion as to how it might be worded with appropriate Secondary Source/s? talknic (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to make such a suggestion yourself? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- I have. I believe UNGA res 181 is an entire resolution, voted on accordingly [7] talknic (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That contains neither a suggested wording nor a secondary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You will need an expert in English rather than an historian. Trahelliven (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All

Perhaps in the main body of the article:-

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II). In the Resolution the General Assembly recommended to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out at the foot of the Resolution.

Perhaps in the lead:-

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II) on the future government of Palestine. In the Resolution the General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of a Plan of Partition with Economic Union. Trahelliven (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All

Perhaps in the main body:-

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II) on the future government of Palestine. In the Resolution, the General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out in the Resolution. The recommendation was addressed to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations.

The details of the Resolution can then be discussed.

and in the lead simply:

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II) on the future government of Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My preference is for the first pair. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Just to be clear, is this going to replace the second sentence of the first paragraph or all of it? The first sentence doesn't look too good either, with all the quotation marks in there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see folk admitting to there being an issue with the statement :-) talknic (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

All

Perhaps the opening paragraph in the lead might go:-

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the Future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).

(This does not alter it in any way but I think it reads better.)

I think the second paragraph should be moved to a separate section, and a note on Parts III and IV of the Plan added. Trahelliven (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should mention this was supposed to replace the British Mandate. Also no need to capitalize "future" and it should be a Special International Regime (I assume that's the official name, too lazy to check right now), not the. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG

1 The Resolution uses the phrase termination of the Mandate. I would prefer that to replace.

2 I simply copied and pasted the whole phrase, Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.

3 I agree that future is probably better without a capital f.

It would now read:-

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). Trahelliven (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, except for the a/the issue. But maybe that's just me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG The clue is that the phrase is used twice, once in capitals and once without. if you you go to a shop to buy a table, you will ask for a table because you may not b fussy as to which one. Once you have bought a table, you would now refer to a specific table, it is now the table. If you want to give the object some importance, you give it capitals. The Queen nowadays, to the British, refers to Queen Elizabeth, while a queen is just the generic term. See definite article (the) and indefinite article (a). Trahelliven (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC

Talknic and NMMNG

I intend to remove the first sentence in the lead and substitute with:-

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).

Have either of you any objections? Trahelliven (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in Reactions section

I think there is a mistake in the sentence "Mehran Kamrava also notes the disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population." In the "Arab Reaction" sub section. This sentence contradicts the table under section "Proposed Division" based on Report of UNSCOP – 1947. The sentence should say that 45 percent of the population in the proposed Jewish state would be Arab. Even though I see this as a simple correction, seeing this article is sensitive I did not take the liberty to make the edit, please help me verify this and make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy.other (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think you're probably right, according to the table the proposed Jewish state was to contain only about 33% of the "Arab and other" population. Just making the edit to the "Reactions" section, however, would require access to the source cited for that, and page 265 isn't available in e.g. Google Books. Do you have ideas, how that could be fixed? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Flapan

I removed the following from the article

Simha Flapan called it a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace and that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.

References

I do not have access to the full source, but from google books I can see that on page 30, he says "The UNSCOP report was published on September 8th. The Arab League responded almost immediately by denouncing the partition proposal and setting up a committee to consider military measures..." [8] This seems like the exact opposite of what we have in the article. Also, the ref has separate ranges of pages for each "myth" which leads me to think this is someone's interpretation of large chunks of the book, SYNTHed into a conclusion, which I don't think is allowed.

Could someone post some quotes from the book that support the text we had in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is what seems to be an excerpt from the introduction to this book:

Myth One: Zionist acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution of November, 29 1947, was a far-reaching compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned the concept of a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Palestinians to their own state. Israel accepted this sacrifice because it anticipated the implementation of the resolution in peace and cooperation of the Palestinians.

My research suggests that it was actually only a tactical move in an overall strategy. This strategy aimed first at thwarting the creation of a Palestinian Arab state through a secret agreement with Abdallah of Transjordan, whose annexation of the territory allocated for the Palestinian state was to be the first step in his dream of a greater Syria. Second, it sought to increase the territory assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.

Myth Two: The Palestinian Arabs totally rejected partition and responded to the call of the mufti of Jerusalem to launch an all-out war on the Jewish state, forcing the Jews to depend on a military solution.

This was not the whole story. While the mufti was indeed fanatical in his opposition to partition, the majority of the Palestinian Arabs, although also opposed, did not respond to his call for a holy war against Israel. On the contrary, prior to Israel's Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948, many Palestinian leaders and groups made efforts to reach a modus vivendi. It was only Ben-Gurion's profound opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state that undermined the Palestinian resistance to the mufti's call. --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

radioislam.net? Seriously? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't look at the top page of that site. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm responding here at the request of a poster on the resource exchange. The above quote is accurate except for a few typographical errors which I have corrected. The quote appears on pages 8 and 9 of the book.GabrielF (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why should he used at all he is not academic the book was not printed in academic book press.He is not reliable source rather a political activist that wanted to push an agenda.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, Flapan is a historian. NMMNG, you asked for help with the source, so a "thank you" would be appreciated more than complaints on seeing the word "Islam". Sure, Radioislam.net isn't as preferable as Max Planck Institute of Literature Weekly Review (I just made that up but you get the point ;), it's what I could easily find. I made a request for this on the resource exchange. Harlan seems to have a copy based on the archive discussions (which are recommended reading before contemplating re-litigating this point). Here are a few more sources that describe Flapan's view: 1 2 Cheers,--Dailycare (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I should thank you for using what the EU's racism monitoring organization has called it "one of the most radical right-wing antisemitic homepages on the net"? But I'll take your point to heart. Next time you use a source like that, I'll just go ahead and report you somewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If I remember next time I'm in the library... Zero^talk 04:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding out exactly what his credentials as a historian are. Other than he wrote a book. Do you have any information? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You can have a look at e.g. the first link on the page Simha Flapan. The book we're discussing has also been discussed, reviewed and cited aplenty, so I don't see a problem here. In fact the aforementioned first link says (Babelfish translation) "The book was published in the year of his death, and is seen as leading the way for the demystification of the founding history of the modern State of Israel. " Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How does it prove that he is historian?Whats his education?In what Universities he taught?Does he was member of academic stuff?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

@Zero:You argued against using Katz work because you said he is political propagandist. Can you explain what the difference between him and Flapan?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You know my opinion of Flapan before I even give it? After I examine his book I may or may not comment on it. Zero^talk 11:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I am sorry that I misread you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"War for Palestine, Rewriting the History of 1948", Eugene L Rogan and Avi Shlaim (2007), p3:

"Simha Flapan set the agenda when he reduced the historiography on the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 to seven myths: that the Zionists accepted the UN partition resolution and planned for peace; that the Arabs rejected the partition and launched the war; that the Palestinians fled voluntarily intending reconquest; that the Arab states had united to expel the Jews from Palestine; that the Arab invasion made war inevitable; that a defenseless Israel faced destruction by the Arab Goliath; and that Israel subsequently sought peace but no Arab leader responded. Other Israeli scholars developed these themes more extensively. Benny Morris provided the first documentary evidence to demonstrate Israeli responsibility for the flight of the Palestinians from their homes. Avi Shlaim overturned the myth of the Arab Goliath and documented peace overtures to Israel by King Abdullah of Jordan and even the Syrian leader Husni al-Zaim. Ilan Pappé demonstrated that Britain, far from seeking to prevent the creation of a Jewish state as argued by Zionist historiography, sought instead to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. The sociological consequences of the state’s myth-making have in turn been scrutinized by Zeev Sternhell. These works have provoked enormous controversy within Israel and their authors have become a self-conscious group referred to as the “new historians” or “critical sociologists.”"

    ←   ZScarpia   15:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That would support text like "according to Shlaim and Rogan, Flappan reduced the historiography on the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 to... ". We could add that Yehosuha Porath said their book's "most significant contribution, unfortunately, is that it exposes its authors’ shoddy research and tendentious analysis". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Rogan and Shlaim's book a reliable secondary source for a statement summarising what Flapan wrote?     ←   ZScarpia   12:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Porath wrote his "review" in 5 minutes. But, no matter, I don't think S&R actually summarize Flapan's position, they only summarize his classification of the problem into seven issues. Don't forget that to a historian "myth" doesn't necessarily imply falsity. Zero^talk 12:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Riad Nasser, linked to above, writes of Flapan's view in this book "Myth One: Zionists accepted UN Partition and planned for peace". I'm OK with that text. Shrike, the source describes him as a "historian and politician", and says the book we're discussing here is especially prominent. --Dailycare (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This source (click on p. 83) is by an academic who seems to have published a lot in the field and describes Flapan's view in a bit more detail, this could be a good candidate for wording in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't answer directly to the question of NMMNG but indirectly.

New Historians consider it is a myth that Jews accepted the Partition Plan and that Arabs rejected this but there is some misunderstanding about why they claim. The point out that :

• the agreement between Transjordan and Israel to prevent the birth of the Palestinian State,
• revisionnists rejected the Partition totally
• the authors of the Declaration of Independence didn't mention the borders of the State and reference to these of the Partition Plan (which they should have done)

Khalidi in more of that underlines that before 15 May '48 the conquered territories of the "Arab state" (Acre, East cost of Galilee, Jaffa, Jerusalem corridor, Arab quarters of Jerusalem) and even more after July.

More information in Avi Shlaim, The Debate About 1948, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27:3, 1995, 287-304.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Zero, any suggestions about the way forward? Maybe we're at cross purposes about S+R's book? Flapan lists seven myths, each of which he devotes a chapter to. It looks to me as though what S+R wrote summarises/describes/interprets the content of each chapter, rather than restates the myths as listed. I scanned through Flapan's "The Birth of Israel" and "Zionism and the Palestinians" and couldn't find a statement directly resembling what was written in the article. Having scanned other books, including ones by Rogan and Shlaim, I'd say that the odds are that the editor who originally added the material to the article was copying from something written by Shlaim. In any case, NoMoreMrNiceGuy was objecting that it looked as though an editor had SYNTHed a couple of chapters of "The Birth of Israel" to produce a conclusion. The quotation from S+R shows that a secondary source pretty much verifies what was in the article; no synthesis by a Wikipedia editor was necessary. Presumably, the purpose of the article statement was to indicate that what is commonly written about the reactions to the partition resolution in pro-Israeli sources and the conclusions drawn is both disputable and disputed. As far as Arab rejection of the resolution goes, other sources point out that the king of Jordan was, due to his own ambitions, in favour of partition (though not of an independent Palestinian state ruled by the Mufti coming into existence). As far as Zionist acceptance of the resolution goes, other sources point out that leading Revisionist Zionists such as Begin condemned the resolution. As far as the Arab desire to fight goes, other sources point out the reluctance with which some of the Arab states went to war and make a case that war wasn't inevitable. As far as whether Ben Gurion's indicated acceptance of the resolution was only nominal or whether he intended to accept implementation of all the terms of the resolution, including borders, timetables and economic union, is concerned, though, I can't think of a source other than Flapan that goes into as much detail.

As far as adding in criticism of Flapan's book goes, I'm sure that a neutral editor such as NoMoreMrNiceGuy would want to show his good faith by going through a few articles where his favoured sources are used, adding criticism of those sources. I see he's engaged in a discussion about how reliable The Jerusalem Post is as a source at the moment. It's curious where the most hostility to the use of Flapan, a self-declared Zionist and ex-Knesset member, as a source comes from.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Flapan an ex-Kneset member? Where'd this latest piece of disinformation come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. That came from my memory, which, not for the first time, has been shown to be of questionable reliability.     ←   ZScarpia   11:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what seems more likely is that someone took S&R's book's introduction, copied it word for word and then attributed it to Flapan. That would be at a minimum a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Since it's their interpretation of someone else's work, I'd assume we should attribute it.

I don't recall being "in a discussion about how reliable The Jerusalem Post is as a source". If you mean that I told an editor that the fact he thinks a mainstream newspaper (not JP, but the point is still valid regarding that as well) is biased doesn't mean it can't be used, that is correct. Are you saying this view of RS incorrect, or are just trying too hard to be clever again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have Rogan and Shlaim's book. This mainly focuses on the role of Arab states and armies during the war ; not really on the "myth". I was published as an answer to critics who claim that New Historian only blamed Zionists and should have a look at waht Arabs did too. So that is not the best book to summarize Flapan nor the (so-called) Zionist "myths".

I add that Simha Flapan is not the best source that can be used to describe the "myths" of the birth of Israel.

1. His objectivity (and reliability) is discussable : he was also a Mapam member.

2. He is the very first of the New Historian and from the generation before so his work started at the very beginning of the opening of the archives more than 30 years ago and much more information was accessible and researches performed since.

I suggest that his analysis are removed and replaced by more recent ones and I suggest that the paper that was given here above : 'the debate about 1948' is used instead. This is a reference synthesis paper on the topic of the "myths" that were "debunked" by the New Historians. It was republished by Morris in 'Makin Israel' (as well as by Pappé unfortunately by never mind) and you can find this in the bibliography of all books on the topic : [9].

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for the best sources being used. I suppose that, at bottom, what we're aiming for is a description of the positions taken by the Old and New Historians, with the differences highlighted.     ←   ZScarpia   11:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NoMoreMrNiceGuy, I agree that the original editor should have cited the statement to the source used, whatever that was. Inline attribution would be desirable if anyone is questioning whether Flapan has been misrepresented. Note, though, that, above, I wrote, "The quotation from S+R shows that a secondary source pretty much verifies what was in the article." That "pretty much" was meant to indicate that, if S+R were cited as a source, I don't think that the text you removed could be restored to the article exactly as it was written.

My view is that The Jerusalem Post has the same general acceptance as reliable source as other quality newspapers. That is, like other quality newspapers, it's not the most ideal of sources in terms of reliability, nor entirely reliable. In the conversation that I was thinking of, you were claiming that The Jerusalem Post is, categorically, a reliable source (which, in general, I agree with). I pointed out that conversation since, as it is current, I thought you might like to start with The Jerusalem Post as a source you could criticise when it is cited in an article.

Well, cleverer than you. But that wouldn't be hard. Or particularly ambitious.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For something not particularly ambitious you sure spend a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to prove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a few things which it would be a challenge to beat you at. But, I wouldn't want to be any of them. If you can't, or won't, cure yourself of your personal-comment-making affliction (it does look like a chronic case), at least try to make what you write worth reading. After all, any cretin or two-year-old can lob shit about, so, when you do it, at least try to redeem it with a bit of style or wit.     ←   ZScarpia   18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me know when you move that mirror out of the way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been too busy to visit Flapan's book in the library yet. Meanwhile this book has a lot of interesting information about Flapan himself that could improve his article. Personally I would prefer to not use Flapan as a source of fact just because he is more known as an activist than as a historian, and also because the ground he covered has since been covered more thoroughly by others. This is not a comment on the quality of his book (yet). Zero^talk 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll produce some quotes if it would help anybody.     ←   ZScarpia   18:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Acceptance by the Jewish community.

The summary in the lede goes as follows: The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. I do not want to alter the relevant section in the article at all. The problem is that the lede does not reflect the reservations of sections of the Jewish community as set out in the main body of the article. Perhaps the lede might simply say:- Subject to some reservations and exceptions, the Jewish community accepted the plan of partition. Trahelliven (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That would give readers the idea that they conveyed a provisional-yes-with-conditions to the United Nations, and I don't think that was the case. AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What was conveyed to the UN (the official position of the Jewish Agrncy) may have been unconditional acceptance. The reservations and exceptions that part of the community had may not have been conveyed to the UN before the vote. Trahelliven (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In such a situation, the internal doubts and fears of the Jewish community can be discussed in the main body of the article, while the basic operative public decision is what's important for the brief discussion in the lead section. AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A solution to comply at best with the facts without controversy is to write : the vote was welcome by the Jewish community in Palestine. Else, we have to enter into complex NPoV issues due to the controversies around the fact that IZL rejected the plan and any idea of partition and that Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency refused to recognize the borders of the partition. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Irgun was not the recognized representative of the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine -- the Jewish Agency was. If Irgun said "no" and the Jewish Agency said "yes", then that counted as a "yes" as far as the United Nations was concerned. Many prominent Jewish individuals had various doubts and fears, and thought that the plan was far from ideal, but if the Jewish Agency didn't stipulate extra conditions when it conveyed its acceptance to the United Nations (something which no one has presented the slightest evidence of), then an account of such doubts and fears would appear to belong in the body of the article, where they can be discussed in detail -- not in the brief introduction at the top... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not accurate but you are wrong.

Revisionist Party (whose former leader Jabotinsky and current leader at the time Begin were among "the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine") rejected the plan and their armed branch, IZL fought it. With Herut, they got 14 seats of the first Knesseth.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's nice -- Irgun was still not the recognized representative of the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine, and the quasi-Jabotinskyite political tendency did not lead a government until 1977, which is a little too late to be relevant to 1947! AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no recognized representative of the Arab community at all so you should stop being arrogant.Pluto2012 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- there was a lot more instability on the Arab side than on the Jewish side, but at various times there was something called the Palestine Arab Higher Committee or similar. Of course, in the context of December 1947, it hardly mattered, since anyone among the Arabs who might have dared raise a prominent public voice in favor of accepting the United Nations resolution had already been effectively silenced in brutal internal power struggles in the 1930s. So the lemmings marched off the cliff in rigidly uniformitarian rejectionism lockstep, following along behind Nazi-collaborator war criminal Hajj Amin al-Husseini... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Jewish Agency indicated acceptance to the UN, However the lede needs to reflect the fact that certain Jewish groups did not agree with the position taken by the Jewish Agency, i.e. the Irgun as you yourself point out and is so mentioned in the main boddy of the article. Trahelliven (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The crucial fact for the lead paragraph is that the recognized representative body of the Jewish community in the mandate conveyed an official acceptance. There were a number of complexities involved in this, but the place to discuss complicating factors and things that need to be discussed in detail in order to be explained properly is in the body of the article. Any attempt to include them in the lead paragraph -- where they would have to be in a shortened and simplified form -- would probably end up conveying a misleading impression to readers of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

These complexities are good to keep in mind, IIRC the Zionist leadership signaled acceptance tactically after learning the Arab side had predictably declined the partition. At no point did the Zionist leadership seriously consider accepting the partition plan.--Dailycare (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Some (by no means all) of the Jewish leaders grudgingly supported a Jewish community acceptance of the plan only because it was almost certain that the Arabs would reject the plan, and therefore the foreseeable likelihood (not a sure thing at that point) was that the terms of the plan would not be implemented. If the Arabs had accepted the plan, then Great Power pressure would have led to a serious effort to implement its terms (which were of course much more favorable to Arabs than any settlement that would be open to them after 1949)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The main body of the article clearly shows, regardless of any official position of the Jewish Agency, that a significant section of the community at the very least had doubts about the plan of partition. The lede needs to reflect that. Trahelliven (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Jewish leaders had deep reservations about aspects of the plan, but on the other hand, when news arrived that the United Nations General Assembly had passed the plan, there was cheering and public jubilation in the streets of Jewish communities. If something can't be explained very briefly without giving readers a potentially misleading impression, then it probably does not belong in the lead paragraph.... AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Trahelliven but the easier is to check if some reliable sources underline this partial rejection regarding Plan. If so, the lede can be adjusted in consequence. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The opening words of the section Jewish reaction provide as follows:- Jews in Palestine and around the world reacted to the UN resolution with jubilation. The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, praised and accepted the resolution despite....

I have two questions.

1 Where does the word praised come from?

2 where does the phrase recognized representative of the Jewish community come from? Trahelliven (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For the first, you could probably examine newspaper articles from November 30. (Many individual Jewish leaders had qualms about the detailed terms of the UN Partition Plan, but in the context of November 1947, passing the plan seemed to be the only immediate path forward to some kind of Jewish statehood, while the United Nations rejecting the plan would have been a blow to the possibility of Jewish statehood.) As for the second, the Jewish Agency was originally recognized by the British Mandate authorities as the body for dealing collectively with the Jewish community in the Mandate as a whole, and it had no serious rival in this function down to 1948... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Your edit of 15:34, 27 May 2013

1 I have deleted "praised" from the main body of the article. The word is not used in the UN reference. If you want to re-insert the word, you should find RS.

2 I recall seeing a document or a reference to a document giving the Jewish Agency some official status. I looked for it again, but could not find it. For completness, the article needs that reference. Can you refer me to it? Trahelliven (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing such a document, so I can't give you any pointers to it, but everything relevant that I've read has indicated that early in the Mandate period, the British government recognized the Jewish Agency as the representative body of the Jewish community in Palestine, and that continued on down to 1948... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Your edit of 01:25, 29 May 2013

I found what I was looking for. It is a note in the Virtual Jewish Library - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Orgs/jafi.html Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) "It was constituted (1929) by the World Zionist Organization to represent the Jewish community in the Land of Israel vis-a-vis the British Mandate authorities, foreign governments and international organizations." I also have no doubt that the Jewish Agency indicated its acceptance of the plan of partition. The lede has got it the wrong way around. Perhaps it should read:-

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community, but with the reservations of some sections of the latter.. Trahelliven (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, if Irgun said "no" and the Jewish Agency said "yes", then that counted as a "yes" as far as the United Nations was concerned. If you mention the "reservations" on the part of minority factions, then you should also mention the jubilation in the streets when the November 29th vote was announced. Or perhaps things which can't be explained briefly without potentially giving a misleading impression are not entirely suitable for being included in the lead paragraph. AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos

1 What RS is there that UN regarded the Jewish Agency, rather than the Irgun, as having authority to speak on behalf of the Jewish community?

2 What RS is that there was jubilation in the streets?

3 I would have thought that the concept of acceptence by the Jewish community meant more than just the members of the Jewish Agency telling the UN that they, the members of the Jewish Agency, accepted the plan.

4 There is no RS to say that the Jewish community accepted the plan, as distinct from the Jewish Agency. Trahelliven (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There's not much point to asking me personally for citations when I don't have relevant sources at hand, but everything relevant that I've read in the past has said that there was such jubilation, and I'm sure you could find plenty by going through newspapers of November 30th or December 1st, as I said above. And the idea that the United Nations could have considered Irgun to be the official representative of the Palestine Jewish community unfortunately doesn't pass the laugh test. And the status of the Jewish Agency in 1947 with respect to approving the proposed agreement was much like that of any government which signs a treaty -- it doesn't mean that every person in the nation unanimously agreed with the treaty, but it does mean that the official representative structure of the country approved the treaty. There were periodic elections (see Assembly of Representatives (Mandatory Palestine)), and the Jabotinskyite tendency did not get a majority in any of them... 07:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Pluto2012 -- Your phrase "partial rejection"[sic] is quasi-disingenuous, since you have every reason to be aware of the fact that the official response was an acceptance, while the rejections were merely private opinions of individuals, or the positions of minority factions which did not have control over the recognized official bodies representing the Jewish mandate community... AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Your edit of 07:47, 30 May 2013

1 I have made to edits to the article, the reasons for which are set out in thei respective Edit summary. In short no reference for jubilation and Jewish Agency being the recognised representative, which phrase was slipped in the UN refernce.

2 Your edit seems to say,"but everyone knows this"; that is not a good enough for wikipedia. Trahelliven (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am now more or less happy with the section. I have no doubt that Chaim Weizmann said something like what he is quoted, with or without a citation.

2 Best and Gilbert may or may not have written something like The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency., as set out in the lede. Unfortunately it is not an accurate summary of the section. I would like something like this:-

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community, but with the reservations of some sections of the latter.. Trahelliven (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Article START I doesn't say in its lead paragraph "The treaty was agreed to by the Soviet Union and the United States on behalf of the people of the United States, with the reservations of some sections of the latter", even though there was definitely opposition to the treaty in the U.S., so I'm not sure why this article's lead section should read that way either... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. How about:- The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency, but with certain reservations from some sections of the Jewish community.. Trahelliven (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read my previous comment, or look at the "START I" article? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes Trahelliven (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Some points:

1. The plan did not depend on the acceptance or rejection following the vote by any group in Palestine. The wording of some of the arguments being put forward tends to make it sound as though the reactions of the different groups had some kind of 'formal' quality. Since those reactions had not been sought, they did not. Their only real significance was that the British government then refused to be involved in implementing the plan because it was not acceptable to all of the communities.
2. The Jewish Agency was recognised as being the representative body of the Jews in Palestine. However, to say that the Jewish Agency was accepting the plan on behalf of the Jewish community would be inaccurate because there were deep divisions on the matter, the Revisionist Zionists being opposed to partition on principle.
3. Although the Jewish Agency indicated acceptance, the only part of the plan whose implementation they supported was partition. It did not, for example, support the parts of the plan calling for economic union or for an international regime for Jerusalem. It would therefore be more accurate to report that the Jewish Agency 'indicated' acceptance than that it actually did accept it.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I agree that the Jewish Agency did not in its heart of hearts accept the resolution. If you have RS to support your third paragrph, please makw appropriate edits. Trahelliven (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig out, which, since most of my books are crated-up at the moment, is a more apt metaphor than normal for what I'll be doing. 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish Agency got the best deal on partition that it could possibly expect. Any expansion of the areas for the proposed Jewish state would have lead to an Arab majority. The solution was the removal of more than 700,000 Arabs. Trahelliven (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The "heart of hearts" test is not normally applied to articles on diplomatic agreements, proposed diplomatic agreements, and United Nations resolutions. I'm sure that the United States in its "heart of hearts" did not really agree to the Panama Canal Treaty, but I don't know how that's relevant to anything (and such "heart of hearts" tests would appear to have a lot more to do with psychoanalysis than objective history)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would never put an emotional phrase like "heart of hearts" in an article. My proposed summary to go in the lede is - The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community, but with the reservations of some sections of the latter.. Trahelliven (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1 The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community. Reliable Sources give support to this proposition which is as currently stated in the lede.

2 Reliable Sources quoted in the section Jewish reaction show that there were reservations of some sections of the latter. In fact the attitude of the Menachem Begin's Irgun Tsvai Leumi and the Lehi (The Stern Group, also known by their opponents as the Stern Gang) suggest that the use of the word reservations is in fact an understatement.

3 Not to include the the additional phrase would suggests that there was universal support in the Jewish community for partition. There was not. Trahelliven (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

More than 24 hours have elapsed since my last revert. I intend to revert again. Trahelliven (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's nice -- what you added is true (though unfortunately rather poorly worded), but nothing that you've said has provided much indication as to why it should be included in the lead section at the top of the article (which is actually the main relevant issue here). There's pretty much never any "universal support" for any diplomatic agreement, but that's not particularly a criterion which is applied in order to rewrite Wikipedia articles on diplomatic agreements or proposed diplomatic agreements (or else all of them would have to be rewritten). According to any objective consideration (including the results of the elections to the Assembly of Representatives (Mandatory Palestine)), the Jabotinskyite tendency was a distinct minority of the Yishuv. When the Irgun tried to retain powers to conduct military actions independent of Israeli government control after May 14th, they found themselves sharply reined in within five weeks.

It's unfortunate that your criterion for inclusion in the lead section seems to be a hyper-subjective "heart of hearts" test... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@Trahelliven : I think that AnonMoos has the point. Even if it is true this point of view was a minority point of view in the Yishuv and this information is at least to complex to be stated in the lead. It is well known that the Jewish Agency made a lot of pressure to make vote the partition plan. If I remember well some Mapam leaders were also opposed to the Partition Plan and expected a binational state but that is also a minority point of view. Globally : the Yishuv expected the Partition. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the reservation could be expressed - with reservations from a small sections of the Jewish community. Trahelliven (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, if something has to be explained in detail in order to avoid giving a misleading impression, then perhaps it's not suitable to be included in the lead section... AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The whole sentence The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community. should be omitted. Trahelliven (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you're now going over to Harlan_wilkerson style blatant historical revisionism? That would certainly be one way to emphatically confirm all my worst suspicions about your motives... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

i have no idea what you are talking about. Trahelliven (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Harlan_wilkerson was a user whose activities on Wikipedia a few years back got him a front-page mention on the Jerusalem Post (though not by name). He had quite a bit of knowledge on certain historical and legal topics, but unfortunately his main "contribution" with respect to this article was to attempt to deny the basic historical consensus about acceptance and rejection of the November 29th 1947 plan, in order to bolster his abstruse and complicated legal theories elsewhere. He has left behind a certain sensitivity to how such acceptances and rejections are presented on this article... AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am flattered. I am of course right about the Declaration of 14 May being premature. It is in fact the simplest legal point that I have ever commented on since I obtained my law degree so many years ago. Trahelliven (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Premature" on what meaningful basis?? The British had withdrawn and refused to hand over territory or sovereignty to anyone (they claimed to be handing over to the United Nations Palestine Commission, but in actual fact did their best to sabotage the authority and effectiveness of the Commission by many acts of malicious spiteful obstructionism). Territorial sovereignty abhors a vacuum, so midnight on May 14th-15th was the exact moment to stake claims... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1 "Premature" meant legally premature.

2 Once the British had withdrawn, there was no need for it to hand over territory. It was the Haganah's for the taking.

3 You are quite right At midnight 14-15 May 1948, by the use of the phrase a Jewish state in Eretz Israel to be known as the State of Israel, the Jewish Agency staked a claim over the whole of the area of the British Mandate. Trahelliven (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Was the Plan implemented?

FROM A READER TO THE EDITORS

The last statement in the lead: "The partition plan was not implemented" is incorrect. The statement in the section Subsequent Events: "The partition plan was never fully implemented" is correct, but in my view could be better expressed as "The Partition Plan was partly implemented, by the Jewish side". Resolution 181(II) said that either side could declare independence as envisaged in the Plan. Israel in its Declaration of Establishment quoted the Resolution as "recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State". The Declaration also says that "the State is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel". (= Palestine. i.e Israel was willing to fulfill as far as it could the Plan for Partition with Economic Union.) Furthermore, it should be mentioned that, in its request for recognition by the United States and others, Israel stated that its borders were those specified in the Plan (see e.g http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/BD240CA5-379D-4FAE-81A8-069902AD1E7F/0/Truman3.pdf)

I am not able to edit the page myself, but hope other editors will consider my suggestions. Walk Tall Hang Loose (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times before. The short answer is "no" -- the plan was never implemented. If the plan in its November 29th, 1947 form had been implemented, then the great powers would have guaranteed two states with open borders (borders deliberately chosen to be militarily indefensible), Jerusalem-Bethlehem would have been an international enclave along the lines of Tangier, Trieste, Danzig, etc. None of that ever happened. Instead, the British conducted their cynical "law of the jungle" withdrawal, where they didn't officially hand over any territory or sovereignty to anybody, but intentionally and deliberately left a vacuum behind themselves (in which the Arabs and Jews could fight it out like a bunch of wild animals over hunks of raw meat).

What did happen was that in the immediate aftermath of May 14, 1948, the (non-implemented) UN resolution was the only real concrete legal precedent for Israeli statehood, and many people outside the middle east assumed that any ultimate peace deal would be somewhat along the lines of the UN Resolution (with revisions to take into account intervening events). However, this residual relevance of the (non-implemented) resolution diminished over time -- and nowadays when anybody says that the UN resolution was "partially implemented" or is still legally relevant etc., what they seem to mean is that though the Arabs vehemently rejected the UN partition plan with vituperative contumely in 1947-1948, and didn't obey any of the obligations that would have been binding on them if the plan had come into force, now however the Arabs are somehow supposedly entitled to receive all the benefits that they would have received if (counterfactually) they had agreed to the plan. Unfortunately, this is nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can work out the only step taken to implement the resolution of 29 November 1947 was the establishment of the Commission envisaged in PART I A. 1. Technically the Declaration of the Establshment of Israel of 14 May 1948 was invalid because under PART I A. 3. of the resolution the three entiies were not supposed to come int existence until at least 15 July 1948, two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed i.e. on 15 July 1948. The section 'Subsequent events' needs to be appropriately expanded. Trahelliven (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting the fine details of the never-implemented resolution (which both the British and the Arabs went out of their way to sabotage) as having absolute controlling legal authority in the middle of the confused hostilities of May 14th-15th 1948, is an exercise in pedantic pettifoggery.

And the British tried their best to make the Commission completely ineffective (see Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 3#British handover, 1948), and did a cracking good job of it, too... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1 The timetable set out in the Resolution is not fine detail, but an essensial part of it.

2 By refering to the Resolution in the Declaration of 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion treated the former as still being effective.

3 By not limiting in the Declaration the area of Israel to that allocated for the Jewish state, perhaps on the other hand by 14 May Ben-Gurion himself had rejected partition. Trahelliven (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Israelis referred to the United Nations resolution as being the only international legal document in existence at that time which provided support for Israeli statehood, but they did not pledge themselves to be unilaterally irrevocably bound by every single provision of it at the exact same moment when the British and Arabs were trompling on it and tearing it up and spitting on it with great gusto. That would have been extremely stupid.

A manifestation of this which has been discussed in great detail in the talk page archives is that the November 29th partition plan boundaries were completely militarily indefensible (in part quite intentionally so), and if the Jews had limited themselves to staying within the lines of the (non-implemented) plan, then they would have been fighting with one hand behind their back, and would probably have found themselves being "thrown into the sea" in relatively short order. Frankly, why in hell should the Jews have been expected to keep to the exact terms of the plan at the same moment when the British and Arabs were trompling on it and tearing it up and spitting on it with great gusto?? That would have been extremely stupid. AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

1 The correct word is not 'trompling' but 'trampling'.

2 On 29 November 1947, there were only 10,000 Jews in the proposed Arab state, (Leaving aside the question of Jerusalem,) I suspect that any expansion of the proposed Jewish state to make it more defensible would have brought in an overwhelming proportion of Arabs and tipped it into having a minority of Jews. In other words on 29 November 1947, there were not enough Jews in Palestine to create a viable Jewish state with defensible boundaries.

3 Any significant expansion of the boundaries would create a Jewish state with an Arab majority. The obvious solution - mass expulsion! Trahelliven (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's nice -- the Arabs adopted a diplomatic posture of rigid static immobilism, and a complete and utter refusal to meaningfully negotiate on any significant issues, and so preferred to take their chances on the inherently uncertain outcomes of war, rather than accepting any offered proposal. They entered into this double-or-nothing war gamble of their own free will, with eyes fully open, and lost -- so they really can't blame anyone but themselves for choosing to gamble. If the Arabs were more focused on securing practical concrete immediate gains for themselves -- instead of being perennially obsessed with trying to deny things to the Jews and indulgently luxuriating in their abstract metaphysical ideology of ultra-maximalist rejectionism -- then they could have had a Palestinian state many decades ago... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The argument that it is the Arabs fault for being in the current siuation goes something like this. Someone comes up to m and demands one of my three oranges. Upon this demand not being met, he promptly takes two and then says it is my fault that I now have only one. Trahelliven (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well technically, the Mandate of Palestine was a Palestinian state, which I believe is why the Arabs didn't want to partition it with the Zionists. Rejecting the partition wasn't a gamble, since the partition plan was just a proposal the Arabs weren't obliged to accept. But we digress. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's nice -- during the period relevant to this article, the word "Palestinian" referred to both Jews and Arabs (as well as other inhabitants of the mandate territory, such as Circassians etc.), as has been extensively discussed in the archives of this talk page. The Jerusalem Post was known as the "Palestine Post" as late as 1952, and the use of the word "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs only was not too familiar to the majority of the publics of the United States and many European nations until the 1960s. In any case, in 1947 the Arabs of the Mandate had handed to them an internationally-guaranteed state on territory far larger than the subsequent West Bank and Gaza strip and turned it down flat -- the beginning of a recurring pattern over many decades in which what they could have had freely for the asking but rejected with contemptuous scorn at one stage, subsequently becomes unattainable, or attainable only after difficult and extended negotiations... AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine was the so-called "one-state solution". The Arabs were the majority ethnic group who were understandably reluctant to partition the country to suit Zionist fancy. I imagine today, Israeli Jews would be reluctant to partition Israel with Israeli Arabs or indeed, say, Nigerians. Without Arab agreement the partition plan had no legal force. But we should keep this talkpage to a discussion on article content. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

to Trahelliven- Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue

You deleted the description of the Negev as arid and desert. However, wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. The negev is arid and desert. It is a well known fact. Anyway, if you feel that it is questionable, I will provide a source. Ykantor (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a better use of your time (both of you) would be to sort out the contradictions. Does Wolffe really say the Arab State was 45 percent of the country? Morris (same page) says 35 percent. Also the article says the Jews were given 56 percent but Morris says 62 percent. Note that one source of confusion is that the partition in the UNSCOP report was substantially modified by the UN subcommittee. Zero^talk 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

we may adapt Itsmejudith proposal and replace the percentage with the areas. Ykantor (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.

Partition plan didn't put Jaffa in the Arab State at first but only later. There were also modifications around Beersheba. I think that would be a valuable work to clarify all this in this article and I would feel debitor to the contributor who would clarify all this for us.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the Negev desert that was unpopulated and unproper for agriculture but also a "vital land bridge protecting British interests from the Suez Canal to Iraq"[48][49]

Can anyone indicate whether either of the two references uses the adjectives, unpopulated and unproper? The first is incorrect and the second is not a word; unsuitable is the correct word.

To describe the Negev as arid and desert is a tautology. One expression is enough. Earlier on the Negev is described as least once as desert. Perhaps just continue to use that expression. Trahelliven (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit strange, but there could be a desert with a lot of rain. The Johannesburg region, used to be a desert (well, a sort of) until 200 years ago. There are lot of rains in the rainy season, but the water are running down the river to the ocean. During the winter ( the dry season) the rivers are dry. Johannesburg water is mainly supplied from a huge artificial lake , behind the Vaal dam. If you are interested, you may read more at this book. Ykantor (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If the Negev is a desert with a lot of rain, like that in Johannesburg, then arid should be deleted. Trahelliven (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

At the southern tip ( Eilat, The red sea) the average annual rain us about 10 mm . At the northern Negev, the average is about 100 to 200 mm per year. The 1948 northern Negev is not a dessert any more. It is irrigated with National Water Carrier of Israel (lately with purified Tel Aviv sewage water) and produce and export vegetables and fruit.

The Arava valley (The eastern Negev , The Jordanian border) hot and dry climate is suitable for growing vegetables and fruit during the winter. It is flown to Europe and get high prices (well, it is the winter). The farmers there are very successful. However, they are limited by a lack of water. Ykantor (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Quotation 3: Yoav Gelber (1 January 2006). Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem

I have some problems with the inclusion of the quotation:-

1 The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. The use of the word repudiated suggests that there was an agreed compromise between the Arabs and the Jews which the former repudiated. There was no agreed compromise. The correct word should be rejected.

2 The quotation implies that there was no violence by the Jews prior to 29 November 1947.

3 invading the newly established Jewish state. There has been general consensus that what happened on 15 May 1948 is best described as invaded territory in the former British Mandate on the night of 14–15 May 1948 as in the article, 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The problems with the use of the phrase of Yoav Gelber are twofold:

a The area invaded was as much the that set aside for the Arab state as for the Jewish state.

b Technically the Declaration was two months premature. (Part B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE, section 3 of Resolution 181(11). It is arguable there was no Jewish state on 15 May 1948.

4 It is not clear what the quotation is supposed to do.

In my view the quotation should be removed. Trahelliven (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

True on all four counts. Removed quote.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• "repudiated" - inserting this word in Google , the 1st reply is:

1. Refuse to accept or be associated with.
2. Deny the truth or validity of.

It seems that it was used here for the 1st meaning, while you referred to the 2nd meaning.

• yours "The quotation implies that there was no violence by the Jews prior to 29 November 1947". I wonder if a quotation is supposed to be always balanced, or it should support a point in the article (i.e. not automatically balanced)? would you accept that both of us would look for an answer? BTW If you feel that something is missing, why do not you add a quotation that highlight this point?
• yours: invading the newly established Jewish state. On the invasion 1st day, the Egyptians attacked Nirim (within the UN proposed Jewish state) and Egyptian spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. So it seems that they invaded the Jewish state ( and the Arab state as well.) Concerning yours "the Declaration was two months premature", I do not know the legal details, but if it is important for you we can look at it. Ykantor (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1 The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. To put my argument slightly differently - repudiated assumes that a compromise had been agreed between the Arabs and the Jews, which compromise was subsequently rejected by the Arabs. The essence of the situation is that there was in fact no compromise. Assuming your use of the word repudiated is correct, you could reverse the situation by saying that the Jews repudiated any compromise that provided for the Jews to remain, but only as citizens of a unitary state of Palestine.

2 The problems with giving the Declaration of 14 May 1948 instant legal effect are as follows:-

a What authority did David Ben-Gurion have?

b Other than to describe the locality of the new state as bring in Eretz-Israel, there is no indication of its location or borders.

c Part B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE, section 3 of Resolution 181(11) provides as follows:-

3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.

The absolute earliest that the Jewish state could come into existence was 15 July 1948.

3 The Arab League entered areas allocated to the Arab state as well.

To avoid all these difficulties, the simplest description of what was invaded is the territory in the former British Mandate. Trahelliven (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"repudiated" - the Dictionary meanings are inline with the quote. Why should we argue about the meaning? . There was the 181 U.N. decision, and the Arabs repudiated (Dictionary meaning- Refuse to accept or be associated with) it. There was no U.N decision concerning a unitary state, so the Yishuv can not be blamed for repudiating a unitary state. Would you accept a sort of arbitration for this point? Ykantor (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

yours: invading the newly established Jewish state. To your legalistic point' have a look at the UN 181 decision, which states: "The Commission, ... shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government." One may claim that Ben Gurion , has complied with that, when he declared independance. However, The important point is the illegal Egyption invasion unto the Jewish state territory, whatever was the legal status. Ykantor (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Although in my opinion this quote is objective and not biased, will you please have a look at Source POV: "Many quite reliable sources have biases. Possibly, all do. A health book recommending herbal remedies likely is biased toward herbs for health. A health book recommending medicines or surgeries and opposing herbs likely is biased toward medicines or surgeries for health. Scientific method tends to produce consistent results but not eliminate bias. Not only are people who are wrong but persistent in their beliefs biased; people who are persistently right are also biased. We just prefer the bias of those who are right over those who are wrong. As long as a Wikipedia article neutrally reflects good sources, the sources cited being biased doesn't matter." ? Ykantor (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

1 Resolution 181(II) is a legal document and should be read as such.

2 The Resolution was not a decision, but only a non-binding recommendation.

3 The only person or body capable of complying with paragraph 3 was the Commission. What steps did the Commission take to select or establish a Provisional Council of Government? In particular was David Ben-Gurion part of such a Council?

4 The important point is the illegal Egyptian invasion into the Jewish state territory, whatever was the legal status. There cannot be Jewish state territory without a Jewish state, My arguments a, b and c that the Declaration of 14 May 1948 may be ineffective have not be answered.

As to basis facts Yoav Gelber may be RS, but the quotation goes beyond that - stubbornly - victims of their own follies and pugnacity. These are value judgments.

Arguing about reject and repudiate is not worth the effort. Trahelliven (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

yours "The quotation implies that there was no violence by the Jews prior to 29 November 1947". Gelber mentions Jewish violence as well. in "Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee", p. 21 "IZL action near the refineries"; p. 23 "An IZL squad threw an explosive into the crowd near Jaffa gate.". Those attacks happened within weeks after the UN partition resolution. You can add those quotes if you find it important. Ykantor (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What do we do further? Usually editors are accepting Gelber as a main stream historian. His Judgement is correct ( in my opinion) and shared with other Main stream Historians. If you do not agree may add another quote, which is correct in your view, together with Gelber quotation. Will you accept that? Ykantor (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New map

I replaced the partition map in the infobox with a version that shows the boundaries proposed by UNSCOP as well as those adopted in Res 181. The difference is interesting. Zero^talk 12:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Great addition. Do you have a source link for the map? I couldn't see it on the image page. It would be good to add the exact date of the UNSCOP map to the caption - presumably it was the map as of 3 Sept? To my understanding the line was amended a few times between September and November - have you seen any sources that explain who had responsibility for those amendments? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The UNSCOP boundaries are from their report of 3 Sep. I added a link on the image page. The UNGA created the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, which established two Sub-Committees. Sub-Committee 1 established a Working Group on Boundaries and it was they who proposed changes. The changes were then approved up the line. The report of Sub-Committee 1 is document A/AC.14/34; it leaves open only whether the Karton district of Jaffa would be in the Jewish or Arab state (I forget how that went, a very careful reading of Res 181 should reveal it). There are other documents at unispal and the UN documents portal, but it is a bit messy. Zero^talk 03:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. I tried to make this clear in the caption in the article. The pdf you attached above (A/AC.14/34) refers on page vii to a map in Annex II - presumably that is what this new map is? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is one intermediate between the UNSCOP map and the UNGA map. I didn't compare it yet. Zero^talk 10:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The thot plickens. The map attached to the report of Sub-Committee 1 is the same as the Nov 27 UNGA map except that the changes in the Negev have not been made yet. Ie., Jewish state still has Beersheba and extends to the Egyptian border except in Gaza. The Negev changes must have been made later. I'll look in more documents of the Ad Hoc committee. Zero^talk 10:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The extra changes were approved by the Ad Hoc committee later, see A/516. Zero^talk 12:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - particularly to see that Beersheeba and half of the Egyptian border were offered as a last minute concession. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting to see some of the small differences. Taking the train from Haifa to Jerusalem, one would have pass few times through each of the states. Ykantor (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The boundaries were in part chosen very deliberately in order to be militarily indefensible, so the outbreak of war pretty much guaranteed that there would be major divergences from the plan... AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)