Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations / United Nations / law  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.
 


WP:NEWSORG- Arab snipers[edit]

to Dlv999: yours: "There is mountains of specialist academic literature on the topic.Why are we citing primary local Australian press reports from1947".

WP:NEWSORG : "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy." Those Australian newspapers are quoting Reuters, AP, and a London newspaper. It seems that they are acceptable, according to the WP:NEWSORG.

BTW if you know any other wp:rs who discusses these details, UI will appreciate it if you inform me. Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but that is a general Wikipedia source guideline. This is a historical topic and should be based on recent scholarship. Please familiarise yourself with WP:HISTRS. I don't know if any other sources discuss the details. I would say that if the details are discussed in recent scholarship on the topic then they are suitable for inclusion. If the details are not discussed in recent scholarship on the topic they are not suitable for inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The suggested WP:HISTRS is an essay and not a policy, hence WP:NEWSORG is overruling it. It is not only a matter of rules, since essays are opened to all editors, and may be contradicting each other. e.g. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Vs. Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. Ykantor (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG states that: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context."
News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. The context here is that we have a mountain of published academic literature so I see no reason to be mining primary source news reports. WP:HISTRS represents established best practice regarding sourcing for historical documents. Whenever I have been involved in a WP:RSN discussion on historical topics invariably that document is cited by experienced editors. Dlv999 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes contemporary newspaper are helpful in filling in details of notable events. However, when something is not covered by the vast opus of historical literature one should think of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:RS. If all those historians didn't think something was worth adding to their books, why should our little encyclopaedia article have it? I'm also concerned that this article is starting to head off-topic. We have lots of articles covering the 1947-8 civil war, let's keep this article focussed on the partition plan. Incidentally, Ykantor, do you have a good excuse for writing "six jews were killed" when the source says that three were killed and three were missing? Zerotalk 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec)WP:Primary source. Dlv is right. Please refrain from fossicking in period newspapers for gold from Broken Hill. You are not an historian, and, as noted, this particular period is thoroughly studied by historians. News reports are relevant when we are writing on a subject not yet covered by the academic literature comprehensively, which is not the case here. I suppose for 'balance' we'd have to put in details about the 'Jewish snipers' shooting all over Arab neighbourhoods in Haifa, to encourage the panic. Rbbish. This article is not the place to write the history of the war, as you should know.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Concerning notability, it is relevant to report the events of the first couple of weeks after the partition U.N resolution. Moreover, in my opinion, those events are more notable than the lengthy discussion of pressure for / against the plan

- Zero: "when something is not covered by the vast opus of historical literature one should think of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:RS". It is covered as a generalized description with some details. e.g.

--:"From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948, the Arabs held the initiative and the Haganah was on the strategic defensive. .... Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated ...British military interventions down to mid-March 1948 … British columns repeatedly intervened on the side of attacked Jewish settlements and convoys. And the British regularly supplied escorts to Jewish convoys in troubled areas, such as the road to Jerusalem. " (Morris 2008 p. 77-78)

"the Arabs had, or appeared to have, the edge, especially along the main roads, the lifelines to Jewish West Jerusalem and clusters of isolated settlements. Acting individually, armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods " (Morris 2008 p. 98)

- "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs. Arab snipers continuously fired at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic and planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads. Movement in certain areas and streets became unsafe. From the second week of December, Jewish traffic was organized in convoys, "

- "Side by side with ambushes along the roads, the Husseini - affiliated irregulars turned to large-scale urban terrorism" (Morris 2008 p. 107)

- However, these quotes were repeatedly deleted here, claiming that the source is biased ! (?). These news reports can't be considered as biased, and according to WP:NEWSORG :"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". So I suggest to use them.

- Zero:"let's keep this article focussed on the partition plan.". Sure. the events of the first couple of weeks after the partition U.N resolution are relevant and important.

-Zero: ""six jews were killed" or three? . it might be re written as "some Jews were killed"

- Nishidani: " fossicking in period newspapers for gold from Broken Hill"". As these Australian newspapers quoted respected news sources, then according to WP:NEWSORG: "Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy".

- Nishidani: "'Jewish snipers' shooting all over Arab neighbourhoods in Haifa". Yes, it should be included in the relevant articles.

- in order to have a consensus, I suggest to summarize those events. e.g "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote, large Arab groups attacked Jewish neighborhoods e.g. The Jerusalem new commercial center, Kibutz Efal near Tel Aviv, Hatikva Quarter of Tel Aviv. Arab snipers shot at Jewish Neighborhood (e.g. Bat Yam) and Arab snipers have done there best to make the roads unsafe for Jewish traffic". This summary could cite Morris (see above) and those Australian newspapers using the news agencies. Ykantor (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Morris' is talking about the period "From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948" and "the fighting in the first months of the war". Somehow this has been changed in your text to "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote". Dlv999 (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The Gevulot incident illustrates the danger of using next-day newspapers for events not observed by the newspapers' journalists. They are very often wrong, which is still true today. History books (including Birth Revisited) and even the PP one day later have a quite different story: 6 Jews from Gevulot were killed while walking near or in the (bedouin, I think) village of Shu'ut. No attack on Gevulot mentioned, nor any connection made to the partition plan. I also want to ask why the Irgun bombings in the same month that killed more than 30 people are not mentioned. Zerotalk 05:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor. You constantly teeter on the edge of WP:OR. The statement you propose, were it valid, and not, as it appears, to be an interpretation from a variety of period newspaper reports, would certainly be in any of the dozens of major studies of that period. Find such a source and you will have no problems. What you appear to be doing is to emphasize that, as the decision was made, only Arabs were doing the shooting. 'The months between November 1947 and israel's Declaration of independence . .witnessed an armed struggle between the Jewish and Arab militia groups for supremacy as the Mandate came to an end and as the British prepared to withdraw. In this context, both sides to the fighting carried out terrorist attacks on each other's civilian population, with Irgun playing a leading role in this regard.' Leonard Weinberg,The End of Terrorism?, Routledge 2012 p.108. In Rubin's chronology we only have, for instance, in the leadup to the decision, a Lehi murder of a Haifa Arab in retaliation for the killing of 5 of their members on November 12, 1947.(Barry M. Rubin,Judith Colp Rubin,Chronologies of Modern Terrorism, M.E. Sharpe 2008 p.181) Given your stated belief that there is only one true version of history (that happens to correspond with the Zionist account) such primary source manipulation will almost invariably meet with opposition. Finding an RS secondary (academic) source for the statement is the only aceptable method: one does not negotiate on WP:SYNTH formulations.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor just refuses to admit : this. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

<outdent>I think we really need a general rule on this; perhaps we should take it to ARBIA clarifications. I first encounter it on Balad al-Sheikh, which was turned into a joke by cherry-picking, do we want all articles to become like that? (ok, that was a loud YES from Ykantor ;-D ..what about the rest of you?)

Bayt Jiz and Khirbat Bayt Far popped up on my "watch"-list recently, when Ykantor added: On 11 January 1948,: Kfar Uriah was attacked by Arabs who came from neighboring Beit Jiz and Khirbet Beit Far.<ref>Morris 2008, p. 102</ref> to both.

Besides the extremely sloppy editing (not wikilinking Kfar Uriah, no defining "Morris 2008," in the Bibliography), these edits are taken totally out of context. Note: the above sentence was all he added. (Also, fascinatingly, they completely contradicts what the -unsourced- Kfar Uriah says…) Morris, 2008, p. 102, tells us that

  • A: the attacks arose from "local friction", and
  • B: the attackers were "routed" by a Palmach force and and a British armour column, resulting in 25 killed Arabs, and 3 Haganah men killed. (Morris further noted that 13 Haganah men were wounded, one assumes that there were wounded on the Arab side too, but Morris doesn´t count those.)

In Morris, 2004, p 66, he also mentions attack on Kfar Uriah in early January…but there he mentions them as attacks from the newly formed irregular ALA troops, some of them Iraqi or Syrian soldiers and ex-soldiers (who, one presumes, came via somewhere, perhaps Bayt Jiz and Khirbat Bayt Far?). Btw, Bayt Jiz had 550 people total, and Khirbat Bayt Far 300 souls by 1945. How many were men of fighting age, 1 of 5? And if the proportion of wounded vs killed is anything near what it was on the Haganah side…well, if so, then virtually every male of "fighting age" in those two villages came out dead or injured if they alone were behind the attack: the first mass suicide attempt, perhaps?

It could of course both be true; there was local friction, and outside ALA forces came and "helped" the local Palestinians. (Since British forces were involved, I assume there is something about it in British archives somewhere.) However, the text which Ykantor inserted, at least to me, gives the impression the attacker actually were Khirbat Bayt Far and Bayt Jiz men, and not men "passing through" these villages on their way to Kfar Uriah. Also, the text he inserted imply that violence went one way ( "Kfar Uriah was attacked by Arabs")...Ykantor writes nothing about the military might which obviously was present in/by Kfar Uriah. Why not?

I think this careful cherry-picking of violent episodes from one side might qualify for topic ban. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree even if I am not confident in the final result.
Referring to one of your recent comment on WP:AE, I add that Ykantor is an exemple of the newbie you talked about, except that we left this one "growing". At the end he made us lose 1 year with his controversies.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

to DLV999: yours: "Morris' is talking about the period "From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948" and "the fighting in the first months of the war". Somehow this has been changed in your text to "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote"". If it is correct for the whole period of 4 months, it is correct for any period within those 4 months. BTW Since the chapter describes reactions to the partition votes, I limited it for the first couple of weeks only, but it is fine if you want to mention the whole period of 4 months.

- to Zero: Gvulut killings. You are right, the newspaper are not as reliable as RS, and the WP:NEWSORG mentions this risk, but still accept them (e.g. Reuters, AP) as a reliable source. Concerning the Palestine post, Following your previous note that the PP is supposedly biased, I moved to check other sources, but it is a pity that I have not checked the PP.

- Irgun bombing. Initially I included reactions of the first couple of weeks only, but it is fine if we extend the period to the whole month, including of course the Irgun condemned bombing.

- to Nishidani: yours: "Find such a source and you will have no problems". I have done it few times, and it was repeatedly deleted here, but I will try it again.

- yours:"What you appear to be doing is to emphasize that, as the decision was made, only Arabs were doing the shooting". According to Morris, mainly (and not only) the Arabs were shooting during those 4 months. If some editors claim that Morris is supposedly biased, than we might have a look at that their writing / talk is supporting this Morris interpretation. (e.g. General Safwat, Jamal Husseini. Kirkbride as well, who definitely was not pro Jewish).

- yours: "both sides to the fighting carried out terrorist attacks on each other's civilian population, with Irgun playing a leading role in this regard". This is right but it fails to say that most of the attacks were initiated by Arabs. (Again, see General Safwat, Jamal Husseini). Anyway, we can write both opinions in the article.

- As I said few times, both sides acted according to same rational. The Yishuv first priority was an establishment of a Jewish state, so they wanted a calm atmosphere. The Mufti wanted to prevent itby disturbances, repeating the same successful tactics that he have used during the years 1936-1939. -

As later the Israeli army became stronger, the soldiers committed terrible crimes and massacres . I am embarrassed and wonder how come that the Israeli soldiers could commit such horrible crimes. I avoid editing these events. But at the first couple of weeks after the Partition vote, the Arabs started shooting, attacking etc. against the Yishuv who was interested in peaceful environment, at least until the establishment of a Jewish state. Ykantor (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor keeps refusing to admit what is written here and continues with his civil pov pushing.
Pluto2012 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Flapan-it is a myth[edit]

The issue was already discussed here.

- the article:"Several scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.[76][77][78][79][80]".

The second sentence is very well supported, but where are the supports for the 1st sentence? The Yishuv happily accepted the the partition resolution. period. The Zionist leaders have not approved or denied their possible expansionist intentions. Hence, where is the "Myth"? A possible scenario for a "Myth" could have been if the leaders would have promised to end any expansionist plans, but eventually conquer more territory, but that did not happened.

- Ben Gurion was both expansionist and pragmatist. His views were constantly updated in accordance with the situations and with his accumulated experience. On 1934 he told Musa Alami "Ben-Gurion suggested that the Zionists could provide significant help developing the region, Alami replied that he would prefer waiting one hundred years and leaving the land backward, as long as the Palestinians did the job themselves". On 1947-48, he realized that the Arabs would have never accept a Jewish state in Palestine, independently of its size. During the 2nd half of 1948, the Israeli army was stronger then the Arab state armies, and Ben Gurion considered conquering parts of the west bank. He raised the proposal for a formal approval, but lost. Thereafter he used to blame the other ministers for their negative vote. However, he was a shrewd politician and could have assure the right vote by preparing and pressing those ministers in advance. Why he have not prepared it? Some Historians claim that he was afraid of annexing so many Arab citizens to Israel, but preferred to blame others for the "failure".

-In my opinion, if hypothetically the Arabs would have accepted the partition, the both states, the Arab and the Jewish, would have co exist within the planned boundaries. If Israel would have tried to conquer parts of the Arab state, the U.S. would not have allow her, similarly to pressure that Truman applied and forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai in early 1949. Ykantor (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Sinai is easy for Israel to give up, it's a barren desert, the place God trapped them in for 40 years as punishment. Possessing it all was mostly about protecting British interests in the Suez and establishing a buffer against Egypt. But it's not critical. In contrast, the West Bank was the historical location of all the Kingdom of Judea and half the Kingdom of Israel. It is, if anything, more the historical home of the Jews than the land they currently inhabit. Outside of Galilee and the strip connected to Jerusalem, this was mostly the land on the coast, not so good for traditional forms of agriculture, which was consequently the most sparsely populated, easiest to convince someone to sell, and, being near to the sea, easiest to arrive at from a foreign land. The Ancient Jews did not live there for the same reason the indigenous Palestinians did not, for the same reason that the Zionists found it easiest to gain foothold. The Hebrew name for the place, "Judea and Samaria", reflects this historical memory. Pressure from the United States over it cannot be expected to have had as much effect as pressure from the United States over the Sinai. As well, Egypt is a powerful country and regional power and was a critical chess piece in the cold war. The Arab state, in contrast, would've been a geopolitical non-entity. The United States would not have been so eager to pressure Israel in the first place there as it was over the Sinai, there would be less for it to gain.
Also, I doubt an Arab state was ever realistic in the first place. You speak of "the Arabs" as a unified entity. But there were differing objectives among all the members of the Arab alliance, and the Palestinians themselves had no voice in the matter. The objectives of Transjordan, for instance, were clearly to seize control of the West Bank for itself. This was part of King Abdullah I's grand vision, inherited from his father, of forming "Greater Syria". He wouldn't have accepted ceding his gains to an Arab state, and an Arab state without the West Bank, just Galilee and Gaza, would've had no leg to stand on. But he did, in fact, support partition, his goals mainly consisted of stepping in to secure the territory from the 1947 declaration. He only actually fought Israel in the projection they made into that territory to gain control of Jerusalem.108.131.85.137 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
If the 2nd part of the sentence is well supported I don't see how the 2nd part would not be either. What's the difference ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Saul+S.+Friedman&go=Go appears: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine U.S. endorsed the Commission findings concerning Jewish immigration ... 20nations%20soviet%20bloc&f false History of the Middle East by Saul S Friedman . ... 87 KB (12,764 words) - 18:57, 9 August 2014 I'm unable to correct; that is, to change "20nations%20soviet%20bloc&f" to the intended text Stuart Filler (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan"[edit]

Unfortunately, the "with a few exceptions" clause could give a misleading impression, since all Arab governments and high-ranking or prominent officials and spokesmen who spoke out publicly on the matter rejected the plan, as far as I'm aware. Of course, Abdullah of Transjordan was willing to consider the plan in strictly private and secret discussions (if and only if the Arab state would be annexed to his realm), but that really doesn't count as "acceptance" in any sense relevant to the United Nations process. There was simply no one who could fairly be called a "leader" on the Arab side who publicly accepted the plan, and there's no indication otherwise in the text of the article that I can see. Possible isolated non-official individuals on the Arab side who were possibly sympathetic to the plan can be discussed in detail somewhere in the body of the article, but including the "with a few exceptions" clause in the top of the article would give a misleading impression... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This sentence resulted from a dispute resolution here, initiated by myself. beware, it is rather long. I compromised since it depends what is the definition of an exception, and whether King Abdulah alone is considered an exception. BTW I inserted into the article the surprising view of a Egyptian daily that was an exception among the Arab newspapers, and called for acceptance of the partition plan, because it rightly predicted that a rejection would result in a worst situation for the Arabs. Ykantor (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The great majority of discussion there seems to be about other issues. I'm having difficulty picking out the most relevant parts, but if any specific exception was pointed out with respect to "Arab leaders and governments", then by all means report on that exception here. This same issue was discussed at great length with Harlan.wilkerson (see the talk page archives of this article), and all he could point out was the extremely problematic case of Abdullah of Transjordan, and some comments by a member of the Nashashibi family (which had consistently been on the losing side of almost all power struggles within the Arab community of the Mandate for 20 years or more by 1947). By all means mention the newspaper and the Nashashibi and Abdullah in the body of the article, but they simply don't support adding a "With a few exceptions" clause to the brief summary section at the top of the article. AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
We could write "the majority of Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan" but we cannot go farther because "Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan" would be wrong. The tranjordan's and Nashashibis' exceptions are not anecdotical. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Your second sentence is rather hard to follow. However, I'm pretty sure that Abdullah of Transjordan's government rejected the plan also in its official public pronouncements, and the Nashashibis were at a low point in 1947, and certainly had no influence on the decisions of the Arab Higher Committee. Unfortunately, no one has been able to point out any meaningful exception among "Arab leaders and governments". If you don't have any sources pointing out any specific unequivocal exceptions, then the "With a few exceptions" clause would appear to be blatant Original Synthesis... AnonMoos (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't want to have to repetitiously grind through basic arguments again and again (something which has proven to be unproductive in past discussions on this page), but the simple fact is that when it comes to public pronouncements from Arab governments and influential/prominent Arab leaders in Nov-Dec 1947, there was a unanimous rejection of the United Nations partition plan. To be able to know about any possible breaks in this surface uniformity, one would have to have access to certain secret diplomatic negotiations, or one would have to listen to some much less influential and prominent Arab voices, which were not an official part of any Arab government. All this means that there is simply no source given on the article page which supports the "with a few exceptions" clause with respect to "Arab leaders and governments", and therefore that wording has to go... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The words "the Arab leaders and governments" implies unanimity. You refer to "some much less influential and prominent Arab voices", a judgement which is (a) subjective (i.e. WP:OR), and (b) contradictory to the unanimity implied by the statement.
Since you want to change consensus here, can you please suggest a form of words which addresses this point? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
First off, it was not "consensus", but rather some kind of truce language which was minimally acceptable to all sides in some previous dispute. Unfortunately for the terms of this truce, the "With a few exceptions" clause is simply not supported by any reputable source when it comes to the public pronouncements of "Arab leaders and governments", and therefore has to go. If you think that the Nashashibis can be fairly counted among "Arab leaders and governments" in 1947, then please provide some source that says so, because the objective indications are that at that point they were mere local notables who had come out on the losing side of a series of power struggles... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Source: Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948[edit]

Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948, Michael J. Cohen, Princeton University Press, 14 Jul 2014:

  • pp294: the UN Partition Resolution vote.
  • p313: the delay imposed on the arrival of the UN 5-man commission.
  • pp333: meetings between Golda Meir and Abdullah.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For my previous semi-attempt to use that book as a source (partially derailed by talknic and partly by the fact that I'm not too good at details of sourcing and don't particularly enjoy it), see Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 3#British handover.2C 1948... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)