Talk:Peel Commission

Added Peel Commission definition

I attempted to be concise and balanced, while avoiding ahistorical reductionism. I welcome educated opinion from all sides. Thanks. --El_C 18:01, 29 Aug 2004.

• Reverted back to the original sentence structure. See my comments here for further details. Kept the Great Uprising addition though, which is both useful and important, and something I should have thought of. Thanks for that. El_C

• Those additions are useful, well done. But please heed my request as per retaining the article's first paragraph. Also, again, please cease from Americanizing the dates, as a courtesy to the original author (me! ). El_C

• Well, as soon as I posted it it was changed back to the original. I'm so confused. The additions were good in substance, but some of the the form was a bit lacking, to be honest. El_C

Please let me try to restore a few paragraphs you inadvertently (I hope :))) removed. As for the dates, AFAIK the format is (or should be) consistent throughout WP, or be configurable via prefs. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Okay, I revised your additions. Cursory revision, but I tried to give it serious attention.

1. Changed the dates back to British (which incidentally is what you will see if you actually read the Report of the Peel Commission ). English has both styles, it varies. A recently read a book by the former American Ambassador to Zambia, he uses the British style. I don't think it is appropriate for it to be a date competition, or worse, date competition-revision, from American to British or vice versa. It is all very silly. So once again, with all due respect, please do not change the dates in articles that I author to American style. I am accustomed to British, and it makes it easier for me to improve when reading my own words.

2. Some grammatical changes. Not many, most were minor. For example, projected. The reader assumes that the reference is to a projected state, since s/he just read it being recommended by Lord Peel. Or flatly. Either that flatly is qualified, or rejected (a pretty strong word in itself) is fine. The qualification is even more pressing for the Jewish side, as opinion was less unified, so I added an excerpt from the Ben Guryon's proposal adopted by the 20th Jewish Congress with respect to the Peel Partition [um, this sort of went into no.3 (content), sorry.].

3. Most significantly, took out the period 1938-onwards. Those belong in another article(s). The Arabs rejected the Peel Partition and the 20th Jewish Congress said it was unacceptable but wanted further negotiations to ongo. And that's it for the Peel Commission. The Peel Partition, for example, could be its own article. There, you could speak about the Woodhead Commission viz. and in relation to the Peel Partition. We are only noting here the reasons for - work done by - recommendations of - reactions of parties to - action taken or lack thereof. El_C

• Additional revision for the first paragraph. Took out outbreak and Palestinian Arabs and date for the Great Uprising. It was a Great uprising, we tell the reader, so either s/he knows about it or clicks the link and finds all about it. Less petinent to get into the Great Uprising while we are introducing the Peel Commission. Suffice that it is wikilinked and it is noted as the impetus. Simpler does not always mean less comprehensive (though, on the same token, nor does it always mean more lucid). El_C

I have moved the text into White Paper of 1939, which should have been created long ago. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish side was to receive a territorially smaller portion

The usual literally true but misleading Z------ slant. The numerically larger non-Jewish side was to receive the territorially larger but economically undesirable Negev.24.64.166.191 07:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As the editor who authored that, I find it to be a good point. Please see my latest edit. But, it wasn't a Zionist slant, I just overlooked that, I'm not sure exactly why, but I was driven by no such motive, that would be antithetical to my worldview. El_C 08:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"The population exchange, if carried out, would have involved the transfer of approximately 225,000 Arabs and 1,250 Jews. [2]"

Zero,

Please give the quote from the report that sais this. This is your OR, the report use the number 225 in a different context and sais census is not accurate and there are 125,000 jews in mixed cities. altogether this is total speculation from you to wrote what you wrote. Zeq 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the quote (with some bold from me):

Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa.

Here is the explanation: The partition plan had a Jewish State, an Arab State, and a Mandate area. The urban areas mentioned (including Jerusalem and Haifa) were in the Mandate area. The population transfer plan was to apply to the Jewish and Arab states. It was presumed that at some time in the future the disposition of the Mandate area would be agreed by all parties but the details were left to the future (no population transfer planned yet). Incidentally, some maps of the plan show Haifa in the Jewish State, but from section 7 of the report you can see it was in the Mandate area. The same two numbers, 225,000 and 1,250, appear in the book of Teveth that I referenced on the page. He calls it "an exchange in name only". --Zero 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is all your explnations. The report itself does not say what you wrote. Zeq 07:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3 issues you ignore are:

• "for a period" (about the areas that would remain under mandate)
• "no census since 1931"
• The whole "if would be carried out" is your OR.

Bottomline is that nothing in the report itself claim what you understood from it. Zeq 06:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"For a period" is covered by what I said. This period was not specified, and what would happen after that period was also not specified. "No census since 1931" is covered by the word "approximately", which I copied from the report. The estimates were made by the very professional Palestine Department of Statistics. Your last comment is incomprehensible. Anyway I can cite Teveth for support. Probably you know that he is not exactly a left-winger. --Zero 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"History"-section

I kind of automatically started to wikify this section when I came across it. Then I started looking more closely: the whole section is a copy-and-paste from erez.israel.net or shalomjerusalem or any such site. (Many of these sites have the same text). I definitely think that we should have a section on what led up to the report, (a "History" section, or a "pre-Peel Report"-section) but a better sourced (and more neutral) is needed.

Also: is the "Lord Peel" here related to, or perhaps same as the William Wellesley Peel, 1st Earl Peel? Does anybody know? Regards, Huldra 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Huldra,

The wording seems NPOV so the surprize is that such a site has an NPOV description of the events. Maybe they took it from Wikipedia ??? In Any case, please suggest different wording. Zeq 10:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq dear; it was you who added that section on 14. March ;-D ......Don´t you remember where you copied it from?? Regards, Huldra 18:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the text as it is is NPOV ? if not what need to change ? Is it not accurate ? if so what need to change ? Zeq 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea as to whether the text is accurate or not; it is not sourced. I cannot easily check. And that is my point, Zeq; we need to source it! (Also: a sentence like "Chaim Weizmann made a speech on behalf of the Jews" begs the question: When? Where?) Regards, Huldra 19:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Huldra, I added a source that describe these events. If you find other version of the events please add. If you object any of the text feel free to remove. If you find anything hat is not accurate or not NPOV please feel free to fix. Zeq 11:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ehhhhh, well, I guess a reference to the "World Zionist Organization" is better than nothing.....now at least readers know where the inf. is comming from ;-P Zeq; if I´m going to work on this article it would be adding a lot more from the Commissions report. Much more interesting, IMO. Regards, Huldra 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Peel Commission map

Please stop reverting it to the old and incorrect map. Plan A of the Peel Commission envisioned Nazareth as an international territory, Jaffa as an Arab territory, and other things. If you have a reliable source claiming otherwise, please post it. Also a PD map should be used in either case, so if you can indeed provide the source, I will probably create one with the other boundaries. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The current map places Tel-Aviv in the Arab state - that doesn't make sense at all, it wasn't what the commission recomended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.45.107 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Arab signature

I was in Nablus last summer and heard a rumour stating that the Arabs had accepted the partition and signed. Someone (either the British or Jews) then blacked out the signature and claimed the Arabs had rejected it. I realise that Arabs (and Israelis, for that matter) are keen on blaming everyone else for whatever went wrong, but could anyone who heard similar stories please let me know? I will go back this summer, and try to get some more specific information that would make this rumour falsifiable. Jacob 03:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In private talks, the moderate leader El-Nashashibi espressed agreed to consider this idea, but the major Palestinian leader, Husseini, opposed any form of partition firmly.

Image

The image isn't correct: Nazareth wasn't part of the mandate. See also: here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijnnaamgaatunietaan (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)