Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 1

Deleted

Deleted: The shore plain, previously swampy, was developed into a zone suitable for agriculture by the Jews. Reason: Although there were some areas of swamp that were drained by the Jews (with British help) they were only a small part of the coastal plain. Most of the coastal plain had been heavily cultivated for centuries.-- zero 13:28, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maps

NICE MAPS! BL 21:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Glad you like them. About to rearrange some of the other map references, since these local maps seem to have survived without objection for a while. I did a bit more than just maps. Notes on my edits:

• Removed part of a sentence about 1/4 Arab because it conflicted with 1/3 Arab in the preceding sentence.
• Changed Palestinian to Arab in various places. In the context of the partition of Palestine, every resident of the territory is Palestinian, so we need to use Arab instead.
• Dropped "terrorist" from Irgun and Lehi piece when I wikified the links to them and noted that they were fighting the British, which seems to convey the same point in a less contentious way.
• Question: What parts of the land allocated to the Arab state does Israel today claim as "Israel" and what parts does it identify as occupied, autonomous, otherwise not part of Israel proper or otherwise conceivably open to returning to the Arab state area as part of a land return for peace deal comparable to the one which led to peace with Egypt? A (brief!) description of this would be good for the final paragraph, showing how subsequent events developed but we don't want to cover all of the controversy here - just add a little historic context on how the land split has turned out so far. Jamesday 16:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am going to put in: "The Jewish state was also given access to the Red Sea and the Sea of Galilee (the largest source of fresh water in Palestine); this was a privilage denied to the Arab state." I think there is nothing inaccurate in those statements. bless_sins Feb.1/06

I am not immediately including the following: "Although in many cases, areas of Arab majority and Jewish minority were also included in the Jewish state. Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev), were included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration in order to relieve the Jewish Problem" I would like to do so ASAP, in order highlight the basis for partition. Please tell me if there is anything inaccurate about it. User:bless_sinsFeb.1/06

MAP

The article is about the mandate and the partition. Therefore, the map should show the partition of 1947 and perhaps indicate the UNSCOP recommendations that were different. It might be good to get a Peel commission map for comparison. There is also some rationale for showing the original area of the Palestine mandate including Transjordan. There is no reason for showing the area of Israel after the war, because this is not an article about the first Arab-Israel war but about the partition plan. That map belongs in the article on the first Arab Israel war. What is missing is a detailed map that shows at least the major towns and villages that were included in each area, so it is possible to know for example, if the Battle of Mishmar Ha'emeq was fought on land that was supposed to be allocated to Jews or Arabs, and if Shfaram was in the Arab part or the Jewish part and so on. Mewnews (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Image:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png, I didn't actually originally create it for this article specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issue

"In addition, pressure was exerted on some small countries by Zionist sympathizers in the United States" Why is this mentioned, but not the fact that the Arab states threatened and attempted to bribe nations for support? IMO none of it belongs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.238.25 (talk • contribs)

Actually both issues deserve to be here provided they are properly supported by reliable published sources. --Zero^talk 10:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the maneuvers of both sides should be documented in greater detail, including the history of the very interesting and impractical internationalization proposal. The problem is to find a source that is not propaganda of one side or the other and is reasonably detailed. That is often the problem RE the Israel-Arab issues. 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish settlements" map

The "Jewish settlements" map is hardly NPOV:

• The yellow area is unlabeled, but when viewed together with the partition map, one get the impression that the yellow area is all populated by Arabs. In fact, much of it (including the entire southern Negev) was virtually unpopulated. Overall, the map creates the impression that Palestine was an Arab land, with a tiny scattered Jewish community. In fact, as the text of the article states, the population was approximately 1/3 Jewish.
• It uses the term "settlements", thus ignoring Jewish population living in the land for centuries in cities like Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias. Also, the term "settlements" has gained certain connotations in recent years, since it's applied to Jewish population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

I'm removing it because of this. uriber 11:23, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Uriber's complaint is reasonable. We should be able to find a map that shows the whole population distribution. I'm leaving for a week but if nobody finds something suitable before I return then I'll look for it. --Zero 12:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Jewish population which had been living in the cities for centuries was not very significant in terms of numbers - about 18,000 based on the 1882 census (plus some 10,000 non-native Jews from the circa 1870-1882 Montefiores, Rothschilds and Russian First Aliyah). That's about 3% of the Jewish population at the time of partition. The Zionist settlers plus immigrants during and just after the Nazi period are the really significant factor in terms of Jewish population. What the map shows is that the Jewish population was relatively concentrated and that the borders were drawn to encompass most of that concentrated population in the Jewish state. The border did so, placing 498,000 Jews in the Jewish state and 10,000 in the Arab state. Zero, good luck with finding something which does a better job of showing why the borders were drawn as they were - if you can find anything I'm definitely interested - good and usable maps are tough to find! Jamesday 16:11, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was still NPOV, so I switched around the color scheme. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a paint/PhotoShop expert, so it's pretty ugly now, since Palestine didn't have just the two colors on the map, and I didn't want to do the "easy" thing of either expanding or contracting the Jewish areas to get rid of the extra colors. I hope that it can be replaced with something equally NPOV but prettier. However, after four years, I figured something should be done to address this. Calbaer 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The map can be interpreted (and will be) as propaganda as the Negev for example - and much of the country - was empty of BOTH Jewish and Arab settlement. Turks settled a lot of Muslims in Palestine in the 19th century in order to repopulate the country (in Abu Ghosh and Caesaria for example). There was no Jewish settlement in West Bank in part because British land purchase laws enacted in 1940 prevented land purchase there Mewnews (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence

I'm having trouble understanding the following line: "Much was owned by Jewish interests (about 7% of the area of Palestine) or the state." Could someone please rephrase? -Unsigned

Source

"The Arab leadership opposed the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). They criticised the amount and quality of land given to Israel. The Jews had been offered 55% percent of the land when they owned 6.5% of it. However, it should be noted that over 70% of the land area (which was mostly desert) was state-owned. The population for the proposed Jewish State would be 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews. The population for the proposed Arab State would be 807,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews. The population for the proposed International Zone would be 105,000 non-Jews and 100,000 Jews." What are the sources for this? —Simetrical (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"roughly 20% of land was owned by Arab individuals and villages." There is no source for this. The widely accepted number is about half (0r 47%) of the land owned by arabs.bless_sins

I will check as I have seen the source. Palestinian Arabs owned approximately 6% of all the land in Palestine. Palestinian Jews owned about 8%. Non-Palestinian Arabs (absentee landlords) owned a chunk. But, the overwhelming majority was state owned. It was owned by the govt and leased to locals. Village owned land was not state owned see the Hope Simpson report. Your % are a gross over simplification.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Question of refugees

Someone (I think jayjg) keep on deleting the Palestinian refugees caused by this plan. The person however, doesn't remove, or adds the Jewish refugees. I think both refugees should be linked to. (If anything the Palestinian refugees were the more immediate effect of this war. The Palestinian refugees were created in 1948-9, whereas the Jewish refugees were created from 1948-67) User:bless_sins

I am not sure details of this issue belongs in this article. There are articles about the war and the aftermath. If it is about partition, perhaps it should stop on May 15 1948 and simply refer to the Arab-Israel war article which is very detailed. The war caused the displacement of about 5000 or 10,000 Jews, including about 1500 who were kicked out of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem and Gush Etzion as well as those who evacuated Gaza strip communities at the end of the war - so the war caused Jewish refugees too. But the war was not the partition. The Arab League, as noted, called for measures against Jews in Arab countries in 1947, and these were also described in a New York Times article. So the exodus of at least part of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries was a direct consequence of the war. Whether any of this belongs in the partition plan is a matter of judgement. Mewnews (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Population demographics

There is a great emphasis in this article on the fact that there were Arabs in the Jewish part, but few Jews in the Arab part. It is misleading. Almost everyone from Norman Finkelstein and Rosemary Sayegh to Shlomo Avneri agree that wherever Jews settled in large numbers in mandatory Palestine, the concentration of Arabs also increased. The Negev and highlands were relatively depopulated of Arabs in consequence - they moved to Haifa and Jaffa and Jerusalem and elsewhere following the employment opportunities created by Zionist development, and in the case of Haifa, the port construction and activity of the British. Therefore it was physically impossible to find places that had only Jews and to draw boundaries that would not include Arabs. This point should be made somewhere IMO. Likewise, there were no Jews in the area that came to be known as the West Bank in part because British prohibited Jews from buying land there after 1940. I believe it was also restricted before 1940 to a lesser extent. Mewnews (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue of land ownership

Although I put in some percentages, I would disagree with the figures presented by Ian. I think we should discuss the issue here. Personally I think that Jews owned 7% of Palestine, the Arab privately owned 47%, and the rest was public property. But there is very few evidence to back my claims, so I have decided to leave Ian's claims alone. what do you guys think? Bless sins 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I included the actual figures, rather than the percentages so that people can understand how the latter can be presented in different ways. The references are there if anyone wants to check. Needless to say books published by university presses are better sources than the Jewish Virtual Library. I think we should stick with the figures. For a more detailed discussion see here --Ian Pitchford 09:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that your sources are better than the Jewish Virtual Library. At this time, I am not objecting to your sources or your figures. But why exaclty should we not put in actual percentages? PErhaps in a different paragraph? 172.171.132.201 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If the percentages are available in a good publication we can cite then it would be fine to include them. If we just calculate the percentages and then put them in the article it will look as though they are sourced to the two publications mentioned when in fact both only give raw figures I've included. --Ian Pitchford 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored all opinions. I'd like to see exactly what Fischbach says on the subject; it appears from Ian's presentation that Fischbach is stating that, for example, all miri lands (and perhaps matruk and mawat lands) were actually "owned" by private Arab owners. As I'm sure Ian knows, absolute ownership of miri lands (and the others) rested with the State. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see better sources than web sites (which are really, for the most part, no better than self-published books), especially as the figures are not consistent with those from the JNF and the Custodian of Absentee Property, but this is something we can work on. A more serious problem is that the article claims falsely that the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, which of course they didn't. They announced acceptance (document in the UN archive), while collaborating with Transjordan in the hope of preventing the creation of an Arab state. --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the use of land, can you say exactly how Fischbach arrives at his figures, or quote him? How does he treat issues like miri land? Regarding the Jewish Agency, I'm not really up on that history, who says that they were secretly collaborating with Transjordan? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the issue of websites, in some ways you're correct, though different websites have different degrees of reliability. However, when someone like Mitchell Bard references a specific page in a book by Aumann for his figures, that's hardly any different that, well, Ian Pitchford referencing a specific page in a book by Fischbach for his figures. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is extremely irrelevant: "According to Mitchell Bard (citing Moshe Aumann, "Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 29, quoting p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine), in terms of the land that would eventually become Israel, 9% of the land was owned by Jews, 3% by Arabs who became citizens of Israel, and 18% by Arabs who left the country." The section is termed "The Division". Israel would not be formed until mor than a year later. Also the borders of the would be Israel would have nothing to do with the UN Plan, and more with Israeli military victories. Also, in 1948, few people predicted that Palestinians would be leaving thier homes. I think we should create a new article in which various claims of land ownership are discussed. Bless sins 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was wrong to remove well refenced numbers. I don't see how these numbers are "extremely irrelevant", just the opposite. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rather absurd to remove well-referenced sections on land ownership, simply because they contradict your view. What is irrelevant is your rationale for removing the information; what on earth would peoples predictions of Palestinians leaving their homes have to do with anything? If you want to remove all land ownership information, that is another issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In my previous post, I highlighted the part that says in terms of the land that would eventually become Israel. Why are the borders set by the 1949 armistice agreements of any relevence here?? Esp. in the divison section?? The 1949 borders and the UN partition plan (the division) borders are totally different. they have nothing to do with each other. Your comments would be well suited in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war section, but not here. Bless sins 19:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The information clearly shows a vastly different view of how much land Arabs owned, and the overlap between the two areas is rather obvious. If we're going to have competing claims of land ownership, then the gamut of views must be represented. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that differing views should be presented. But once again: this is not relevent. This talks about the land ownerhsip within the 1949 armistice lines. What do the armistice lines ("what eventually became Israel"), have to do with UN partition plan? If you can find figures that provide a contrary point of view, but talk specifically of the 1947 UN plan, then you are more than welcome to post them here. Bless sins 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that a cited source which shows wildly different land ownership than is claimed by other sources is "irrelevant"? Could it possibly have to do with the fact that this particular source insists that Arabs did not own nearly as much land as the source you preferred? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is because the land onwership this refers to is that of "what eventually became Israel". The borders of israel have nothing do with the UN partition Plan. I have said that several times. Comparing the statistics you back with the U.N is like comparing apples with oranges. Seriously. Pls. respond to this point, and don't try to invent possible reasons for my opposition. You are more than welcome to post well-sourced statistics that talk of the UN partition plan and NOT of soemthing else. I don't care what those statistics are. I don't care if they say Arabs owned 0% of the land. Bless sins 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe you insist that land included under the 1947 Partition plan had nothing to do with the 1949 Armistice lines; in fact, they include it completely. The information is entirely relevant, and your arguments against it are specious. Also, please do not remove requests for citation; if you have evidence that Arabs made this argument at the time, then bring it forward. Personally I strongly doubt they did; rather, it seems like an argument that Arabs are making today. Jayjg ^(talk)

Jayjg, I'm running out of patience. Please go to 1949 Armistice Agreements for the map that shows the LARGE differences in the Jewish state of 1947 partition plan, and that of 1949 armistice agreements. Your numbers will be well suited in some other article, but not this one. My second argument is that your figures are (mis)placed in the section "the Division". This talks of what was given to the Arab state, and what was given to Jewish state; hence the basis (and the context) in which the territory was divided. What do Palestinians leaving their homes, and 1949 Armistice lines (both of which happened later on) have to do with the basis or context of the 1947 division???172.138.114.72 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're running out of patience. However, given that the source provided states that Arabs who left what eventually became Israel only owned 18% of the land, and given that the 1949 armistice lines were actually larger than the 1947 plan, and had a much lower percentage of Jewish ownership, this fact is highly significant. The numbers as presented are misleadning. Also, regarding the 55%/6.5% claim, I still need a proper reference that Arabs made that argument back then. Sure, you can find an article with some guy making that argument today, but the article claims that Arabs made the article back then. Who were these Arabs, and where and when did they make that argument? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SO, finally you admit that 1947 Partition Plan HAD NOTHING TO DO with what eventually became Israel. Secondly, the UN partition plan was of British mandate of Palestine, not just of Israel. By presenting facts only about 'what eventually became Israel', you are ignoring the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are no doubt crucial parts of Palestine. Bless sins 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense; the 1947 Partition plan had a great deal to what eventually became Israel; Israel encompassed all of it, plus other territory. More importantly, have you read the opening sentence of that entire section? It says "According to Michael Fishbach, of the land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements etc." In other words, all of the figures there are in relation to the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and none of them are specific to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. If you want to remove all the numbers, you can argue for that, but I don't see any rational justification for arguing for some 1949 numbers but not others. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point. Before I make my counter argument, I would like Ian Pitchford to clarify what "of the land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements..." means. It could mean whole of the mandate of Palestine, (in which case the quote would be entirely relevent), or it could mean something else.Bless sins 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the source myself, it was actually that JNF thing again, which was written after the Agreements. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pls. clarify "it was actually that JNF thing again". If indeed this info. is post 1947, then it needs to be atleast reworded (if not placed somewhere else). We want to know, what the U.N. was thinking when it divided Palestine.Bless sins 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the argument of Arabs pointing out that Jews only owned 6.5% of the land, take a look at that article once more: Palestine MOnitor Analysis, State of Aggression Paragraph one: "To clarify the foundational reasons behind the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan, there are four reasons deserving of discussion" Paragraph seven: "the Arab world perceived that the UN were not competent...", perceived is in past tense, other pargraphs are similarly in past tense. Also, we should add some arguments made by this article.

It's a dubious source which itself quotes no other sources; in other words, a modern argument that has been anachronistically foisted on previous generations. Please provide sources which actually enumerate the arguments that were made back then, not arguments that, in hind-sight, modern-day activists wish they had made. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is a "dubious" source. Secondly, I have already explained (see above), how the article claims that the arguments were made 'back-then'. Thridly, the article does refer to othr sources used (scroll down to the bottom and there is a bibliography).Bless sins 09:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BS, I'm not talking about my personal likes or dislikes, I'm talking about reliable sources. The article is not from a reliable source, nor does it give any real indication as to who made this argument and when - the bibliography is entirely non-specific. Please find a source which actually does these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why exaclty the article not from a reliable source?? The article clearly says that "foundational reasons behind thePalestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan", and the rejection, anyhow was made 50 years ago and NOT TODAY. The Plan is extinct today, there is no more discussion on it, by neither the Israelis nor the PAlestinians. Why will PAlestinians reject something that is not tlaked about today, and that even Israel disagreed on (by occupying more than what it was assigned).Bless sins 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the UN figures now and I think I can work out where the 18% figure comes from. I don't know whether I'll have any time soon to add the material to the article. --Ian Pitchford 09:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea at all? It might help solve some problems. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find where the 21% figure (note that the Arabs wouldn't be expelled until after the plan) comes from, and how it relates to the UN partition(it's ALL about relvency) then that would be great.Bless sins 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Farm land

The relevant question really ought to be how much unoccupied farm land was available before the massive Jewish immigration began? The government of the British Mandate never completed their cadastral survey of Palestine. The map for 1937 showed that they still had no idea who held the legal title to the majority of the land in the country.

Land sales to the Zionist organization and Jewish immigrants were curtailed after 1892 during the Ottoman period, and after the 1939 White Paper during the British Mandate period. During those periods the Zionist organization circumvented the legal restrictions by purchasing the land through resident Palestinian Jews. see for example Edmond de Rothschild, The Man who redeemed the Holy Land and the cadastral and topographical survey map: http://www.gwpda.org/1918p/palestine1_1937.html also see The Survey of Palestine Under the British Mandate, 1920-1948, Dr. Dov Gavish http://www.pef.org.uk/Pages/Gavish.htm

The apparently low percentage of Arab private land ownership is almost irrelevant, since only 15 percent of modern-day Israel is comprised of arable farm land anyway. A Dunam of land located in an Arab Citrus grove, in a place like Jaffa, would tend to be worth much more than a waterless dunum somewhere in the Negev desert. see Arable land section, Israel CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html

The Negev was part of the land which was not included in the cadastral survey. Many Jewish and Arab sources state that the UN negotiator Count Bernadotte was assassinated for suggesting that the Negev be given to the Arab state as compensation for the Arab lands that had been seized in the north during the War of Independence. For example the Jewish Virtual Library says, "One organization that saw Bernadotte’s efforts as a threat was LEHI, a Jewish underground group that, under the leadership of Yitzhak Shamir, Dr. Israel Scheib and Nathan Friedman-Yellin, had waged a campaign of “personal terror” to force the British out of Palestine. LEHI called Bernadotte a British agent who had cooperated with the Nazis in World War II. The organization considered his plan to be a threat to its goal of Israeli independence on both banks of the Jordan River. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/folke.html

The Jewish National Fund is trying to attract Jewish settlers to the Negev. They claim that, "The Negev represents 60% of Israel’s landmass, but only 8% of its population lives there." Arab settlements located in the southern Negev, which existed prior to 1948, are not recognized by the State of Israel. Even though the Bedouins are Israeli citizens and serve in the military, their homes are bulldozed, their water supplies are diverted, and they are declared to be "invaders" on "state land" by the Jewish zoning authorities. Half the members of the Israeli Land Authority's top planning council are appointed by the Jewish National Fund, which doesn't answer to Arab voters.

In 1952, the Knesset passed the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency for Israel (Status) Law (Appendix 13), which stipulates: "The State of Israel recognizes the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency for Israel as the authorized agencies which will continue to operate in the State of Israel for the development and settlement of the country, and etc. In 1954 a "Covenant" was signed between the Israeli Government and the Zionist Executive (Appendix 14). These two basic documents granted a special status to the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency, which was established in 1929 (Appendixes 15 and 16). see: http://www.thelikud.org/Archives/Structure%20of%20the%20World%20Zionist%20Organization.htm

These Israeli-Arab Bedouin citizens routinely have their crops sprayed with herbicides or burned by IDF "Green Patrols". see:

The Shrinking Space of Citizenship: Ethnocratic Politics in Israel http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_yiftachel.html

Olmert kicks off the “Negev Development Plan” by leveling Arab houses http://www.imemc.org/content/view/18571/1/

JNF’s Blueprint Negev advertorial http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advertorial

Adalah's Pending Legal Challenge Before the High Court of Justice over the ILA’s Spraying of Crops Cultivated by Arab Bedouin in the Negev, H.C. 2887/04, Saleem Abu Medeghem, et. al. v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al. http://www.adalah.org/eng/legaladvocacyland.php#2887 harlan 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue of Land Ownership - It is right to leave these numbers out because they are misleading and are abused for propaganda purposes. For example, the Negev Bedouin were nomads. Nobody ever counted the population of Bedouin in the British times. It was just estimated. Land was not registered to anyone in the Negev. There are extensive sources for this. The Bedouin wandered between Sinai, Negev and Transjordan with the seasons. Now the Bedouin want to settle down, so they squatted on lands and built "towns" there and claim they are being evicted from "ancestral" lands. It is not so. They can't claim all the lands they wandered over, any more than Jews can claim all of Europe because they happened to pass through different towns. These Bedouin could as well have settled in one part of the Negev as another, or they could have settled in Sinai or Jordan - it was all equally "theirs" or not theirs. Only a tiny percent of land in the Negev proper was ever registered (I remember 50,000 dunam from Kenneth Stein - out of about 12 million dunam).

The Palestine Arab land register was totally chaotic and the British despaired of ever getting it right. The area that people call "Arab" land is generally the area that Arabs paid taxes on or that was part of "village lands" or "town lands." or was actually "owned" in the sense of being Miri land or Waqf land. About 45% was crown land, 47% was "Arab" (in one of the above senses) and perhaps 8% was Jewish - but all the Jewish land was bought or came from gov't allotments (a small amount). Jewish bought land as well as Arab bought land was often Miri land (lease for use) and not Mulk (true ownership) However, the Arab Miri land was often land that had not been used by anyone but goats for dog's years. A significant part of the "Arab" lands were lands that the British sold to Arabs (as in Beit Shean) at bargain basement prices in order to redress what they thought was the "dispossession" of the Arabs - this is pretty well documnented by Avneri. From the 47% that is often cited as "Arab" land, it is hard to separate out what was really owned and worked by Arabs, what was land that should have reverted to the state from disuse, what was village land etc. Another problem is that when the British left Palestine a lot of records were destroyed. Kenneth Stein found some of them, but his work is very incomplete. Mewnews (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bedu also held the title deeds to property in the Negeb. And the village lands have for some reason been included into the State land %. Village land was more of a cooperative very similar to the Kibbutz system. To include village land as State land is erroneous.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ben Gurion and the New Historians text

Bless sins keeps trying to insert the following text:

this view is supported by statements from David Ben Gurion and other leaders recently discovered by Israel's New Historians and other independent scholars[1]

The link itself is to a very small Christian pro-Palestinian advocacy site affiliated with Sabeel. The article in question appears to possibly be a partial reprint of what may be an August 2002 letter to the editor by a William James Martin in International Socialist Review; it's hard to tell exactly what it is, and the end of it may be cut off. The alleged quotes are of questionable relevance; they purport to be from a letter from Ben Gurion to his son in 1937, over a decade before partition, and are obviously edited by the author, since they are filled with ellipses. The letter itself is only supposed to be from Ben Gurion, not "other leaders", and we have no idea who "discovered" it. The entire thing from start to finish is one of the most dubious uses of "sources" it has been my misfortune to witness on Wikipedia. Are there any more questions as to why this source is not appropriate? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can say the same about the Jewish Virtual Library, which is HUGELY biased. Secondly don't criticize a site for being Christian, nor for bieng pro-Palestinian. Thirdly, just because the letter is to Ben Gurion's son, doesn't mean Ben-Gurion didn't say (or write) it. Fourthly, ellipses are common practice to shorten things up, there is nothing "questionable" about them. Also, the Wiki article on Benny Morris supports this claim. Benny Morris, an Israeli New Historian, says (whether rightfully or wrong fully):

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer (of Arabs out of Israel)..."

This is a confirmation of what Ben Gurion had already said back in 1937. Bless sins 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another evidence that Ben-Gurion, wished to expand. Go to [2]

Read the fourth and the fifth paragrpahs. As you will be able to see, the site is none other than Haaretz.212.138.47.29 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the sources were good, what on earth is the relevance? Please read what the section is about; it's about alleged Arab fears of Zionist expansionism. How could what the New Historians might say in the 1980s and 1990s possibly be relevant to what Arabs were using as reasons to reject the 1947 Partition plan back in 1947? Did the Arab leaders have a time machine, which took them into the future, where they read the books of the New Historians, and then zipped back to 1947 to tell their brethren "Don't trust the plan, in the future Benny Morris will find evidence that the Zionists have expansionist plans!"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me argue with you with your own argument: If it is wrong to quote later events, why is it right to quote the fact that Palestinians were expelled from their homes? Esp. in the "division" section? Did the UNSCOP, which divided Palestine, use a time-machine to find out that Palestinians would suffer such a fate? Did they know anything about Israel's would-be borders in 1949 (i'm talking of the land ownership issue)? If, not why talk about what Israel eventually became, esp. in the section that talks specifically about the division of Palestine. Did the UN divide Palestine on the basis of what Israel would become later on?87.109.20.129 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm waiting for a response. Jayjg, I'm still waiting.Bless sins 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the response is in the section below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see where he talks about the land ownership issues. 172.131.17.199 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand your question, or know who you are. In fact, from now on, if you don't login and sign your posts, I won't be answering. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(sigh), THis is what you said:"Please read what the section is about; it's about alleged Arab fears of Zionist expansionism. How could what the New Historians might say in the 1980s and 1990s possibly be relevant to what Arabs were using as reasons to reject the 1947 Partition plan back in 1947? Did the Arab leaders have a time machine, which took them into the future, where they read the books of the New Historians, and then zipped back to 1947 to tell their brethren "Don't trust the plan, in the future Benny Morris will find evidence that the Zionists have expansionist plans!"? "

I responded: "Let me argue with you with your own argument: If it is wrong to quote later events, why is it right to quote the fact that Palestinians were expelled from their homes? Esp. in the "division" section? Did the UNSCOP, which divided Palestine, use a time-machine to find out that Palestinians would suffer such a fate? Did they know anything about Israel's would-be borders in 1949 (i'm talking of the land ownership issue)? If, not why talk about what Israel eventually became, esp. in the section that talks specifically about the division of Palestine. Did the UN divide Palestine on the basis of what Israel would become later on"

You call my arguments irrelevent yet your aargument about 1949 armistice lines are themselves irrelevent. Pls. don't hold my not signing in against me, i don't think its crime to do so. Bless sins 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble understanding what you're talking about. What section talks about "the fact that Palestinians were expelled from their home"? And how would that relate to a failure to properly cite a claim that Arabs feared additional Jewish expansion? If they feared it, then provide a proper citation; what's so hard about that? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just scroll to the top of this section (that you created) and begin reading down. SInce you wrote a lot of it, it should be a quick read. I gave a response on 23:04, 17 March 2006, to whcih you never responded back. It's about the original land ownership issue. Pls. respond to this.Bless sins 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've lost track of what this is about, and it shouldn't be this complicated. Bless sins, please read our policies about sources (WP:NOR and WP:V) and stick to them. This means providing a reliable source for your edits and sticking very closely to what the source says without introducing your own spin. Then there will be fewer arguments, and possibly none. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not able to find any text about Palestinians being expelled, nor understand what the current issue is. Bless sins, is there any specific text you want to add, or delete, or modify? If so, what is it, and why do you want to do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am questioning the relevency of the info. you added some time ago regarding the land ownership of Palestine. This questioning is in the light of the "time-machine" arguments you made on 18:33, 16 March 2006 (just scroll up a bit). This about PAlestinians "leaving" thier homes (sorry for not expressing this in more NPOV terms before). This is NOT about reliable sources, rather about the relevency of the info you have added.Bless sins 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the various pieces of information about land ownership in 1949? We've already talked about this before; all the figures are from 1949, as you agreed, so they are all equally relevant. Do you want to remove them all? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the figures talk about the 1949 conditions. The mideast web makes no mention of 1949, and infact on another page [3], it refers to "Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946". Avneri also talks of the time of 1947 or prior to that. Michael Fishbach mentions "that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements". This is unclear as the West Bank and Gaza Strip could also be included. If he means only Israel, then indeed it is irrelevent (as the UN did not have a "time machine" that they could use to get to 1949). Now if you don't consider it "edit-war recruiting", I would like to ask Ian Pitchford to clear up this quote by perhaps providing us with the context. The other source that refers to 1949 Armisitice agreements is JVLibrary, which the argument is about.Bless sins 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what the context is for that quote. Fishbach, in the footnote to that page, refers to the book The Jewish National Fund by Lehn and Davis, which in turn, has a footnote which apparently states this. It is an allegation made about what was then Israel, not the West Bank or Gaza strip. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

IF it is indeed only about ISrael of 1949 (and not of 1947), then it would be as irrelevent as JVLibrary stats. I created the land ownership article to move these facts to a place where they will be appropriate. This article talks about the 1947 UN Plan and the facts are located in "The Division" section. Like you said the UN did not have a time machine and so what would happen in 1949 was not in any way available to them. Any facts talking about stats available in 1947 or prior to that should most definetly be included.Bless sins 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Source request

We need a reliable source, please, for: "Arabs also feared that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone for further advancement." This [4] doesn't look like a good source, and it's anyway not clear what it's saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can provide for you at least ten different sources if I wish. Please refere to the section above, as there is a well known Israeli source there - Haaretz. However, source doesn't seem to be the prob, as Jayjg himself said; it is the relevency. Bless sins 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is reliable sources for the claim that Arabs feared that would happen. Please provide them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there is this source. It clearly says: "The strategic imperatives since 1936 of David Ben-Gurion were relevant to influencing the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 partition."

If you object to Ben-Gurion's intention to occupy all of Palestine, and drive the indegenous Arab pop. out -- then in the section above there is a link to the Haa'retz article.172.147.110.214 12:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A paper written by a law student on a POV website? Please find a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Talking of POV, isn't JEwish Virtual Library one??172.152.57.124 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The law student clearly uses facts that are evident in Israeli sources.172.152.57.124 11:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We need a scholarly source who shows that the "Arabs also feared that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone for further advancement"; not a letter from Ben-Gurion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC) It is a source about the Arabs that you need. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What is un-"scholarly" about this article?? The author, Jason D. Söderblom, is an Analyst with the Terrorism Intelligence Centre of Australia. He is also a Staff Member and Student at the Faculty of Law, Australian National University. I don't know why you are criticizing someone for trying to study something. Sure he is a student, but that's not the only qualification he has. HE has written plenty of articles published in good sources - a simple google search will show you that.Bless sins 12:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes an analyst from the "Terrorism Intelligence Centre" a good source on Israeli history? Also, the confirmation stuff you added was the same old nonsense, a doctored alleged quote from an alleged letter to the editor on another site which is not a reliable source. Finally, the initial sentence was also unsourced. Please try to use proper sources which actually prove what you say. On the positive side, I'm glad to see you are logging in again. On the negative side, it's disappointing that you did so in order to recuit people to edit-war for you, while grossly mischaracterizing the nature of the dispute.[5] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously miscommunication between us. That's why I asked Siddiqui (who has had more experience) to help me communicate my ideas to you. (You seem to think that I want to "recruit" people).

So, back to the topic. LEt's take this real slow, one step at a time. First of all, do you agree that David Ben Gurion intended to expand the Jewish State and/or drive the Arabs out of their homes? (I think this seems to be the major problem). IF you say yes, then we can move on to the next step (whether the Arabs were aware of this).172.136.222.169 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen Siddiqui has a great deal of experience at inserting unsourced original research written from a Palesinian POV, then edit-warring to keep it in articles. Since that's exactly what you've been doing here, it's not surprising that you've attempted to recruit him. Also, please login, it's a courtesy so people know who they're talking to. I've responded to the rest below. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins, your paragraph uses two sources, Ben-Gurion as a primary source [6] and Jason D. Soderblom, sometimes written Söderblom, as a secondary one, [7] for the sentence: "Arabs also feared that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone for further advancement ..." Ben-Gurion was not an Arab and did not fear that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone, nor does he mention Arab fears (that I could see from the source material), so he isn't a good primary source. Jason Soderblom cites himself as being with the Australian National University. A search through their staff list [8] shows there is a Mr. Jason Soderblom (note: Mr, not PhD) with the National Judicial College of Australia [9], which is not part of the law school, and which seems to provide training to people involved in judicial administration, which has nothing to do with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Soderblom also self-describes on various websites as the "Director of the World-ICE Group and an Analyst for the Terrorism Intelligence Centre (TIC) in Canberra, Australia." A Google search for the "World-ICE Group" returns only seven unique hits. [10] It stands for "World International Community Experts," [11] and appears to be a website run by Soderblom himself. All the articles listed seem to have been written by him, but not all published anywhere, so I'd say this looks like his personal website. Please correct me if I've overlooked something about it. As for his position as "analyst" with the "Terrorism Intelligence Centre (TIC) in Canberra," there's something that the Australian government calls its counter-terrorism intelligence center in Canberra, which is formally called the National Threat Assessment Centre (NTAC) [12] but that doesn't seem to be what Soderblom is referring to. There are a few other references to a Terrorism Intelligence Centre in Canberra, but the other one seems to be run by one man, also someone associated with the Australian National University [13] (pdf). No mention of Soderblom there that I could find, so I'd say if he is an "analyst," he's probably someone who has an article on the "Centre's" website, not in and of itself something that would make him a reliable source for Wikipedia. An Amazon search for publications by Jason Soderblom or Söderblom, with and without the D, returns nothing.

If his article were in a peer-reviewed or otherwise mainstream publication, it wouldn't matter who he was, but as it's in the Palestine Monitor, and as he uses intemperate, unscholarly language — "Ben-Gurion consistently lacked the willingness to negotiate in good faith with the Arabs of the mandate Palestine, a gross and unconscionable act ..." [14] — my opinion is we have no reason to believe that Soderblom is a reliable and suitably qualified source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said (though after your post), we need to take this one step at a time: first, is there agreement that Ben-Gurion considered a Jewish state as a stepping stone for further advancement? IF yes, then I'll try to hunt down better sources for the arab part. (I need some time to that) Bless sins 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear if Ben Gurion believed that; there's certainly no reliable source for it. More important, it's not relevant. The sentence in question is about Arab views, not about Ben Gurion's views. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let us first agree upon whether or not Ben-Gurion wished to expand further or not. After we agree, I will try to prove the relevence with some "reliable" sources. There is no use trying to prove the relvence of a statement, when we are not sure whether the statement is true.Bless sins 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins, you've misunderstood our policies. We publish what reliable sources publish. We don't investigate whether their claims are true. So if Professor Very Esteemed, the head of mid-east history at Oxford University, publishes in a reliable journal that the Arabs feared the Jews signalled the start of a Martian invasion, that's what we publish. See WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SOrry, for the deletions, there were a mistake. Obviously every bit of info. in this article (or other ones) isn't from a Dr. "Very Esteemed" from some prestiguous university. What sort of sources are you looking for?? Palestine Monitor seems to be criticised but not Jewish Virtual Library, though both are equally POV.

As I said above, from now on, if you don't login and sign your posts, I won't be answering. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The version of the article is biased

What source is used ? Not known. It's a badly written article. There are no citations for anything. The "creation of the plan" section is amateurish. The intro of the section is biased against Jews making it makes it seems like Israel could have created anywhere else and there's no justification in creating it in Palestine, instead of showing how nobody thought at the time that the land could be given to any other People, that the only People recognised for a national claim in the area was the Jews who are the only ones who showed loyalty to Israel as an entity throughout the years. The phrasing is malicious and one sided. A better version is to show how the area was always regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people, how Arab leaders at the time recognised this , how the original area of Israel is on both sides of the river and how Palestine was cut in order to appease Abdallah. There's no justication either in rationalising the Jewish "influx" because of antisemitism only, as there was always aliyah to Israel, as well as not talking about the immigration of the arabic population and stating hard demographic facts. Also, this intro actually suggests that the British were very happy to give the Jews a state but the Jews rejected it and started battling British - absolutely ludricous. A serious discussion is needed about the White Paper too. Putting tag. Amoruso 11:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I found out the intro is actually a new addition based on supposedly some article - [15] Amoruso 11:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bias

The opinion of the other so-called "Arabs" was, and is, irrelevant. The League of Nations Mandate Commission explicitly declared that Palestine was recognized as an independant state: "The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity."

The Commission also noted in 1937 that "As soon as intervention on the part of the Arab Princes [that was to say, of foreign heads of State] in the internal affairs of Palestine had been permitted, and recognised more or less as legitimate, the situation was completely transformed. From that time forward, what could rightly be considered as a local problem had become the centre of a vast international problem."

The Commission pointed out that this sort of situation violated a key stipulation of the mandate:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be . . . in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power". see LEAGUE OF NATIONS PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION, MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-SECOND (EXTRAORDINARY) SESSION

The British government and the Jewish Agency deliberately pursued negotiations concerning Palestine with foreign heads of state, or with carefully hand-picked Arab leaders, while steadfastly refusing a local plebiscite or negotiations with the native Palestinians themselves.

'In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. Zionism be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age long traditions in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires of prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land.' Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1931, First series Vol 4. page 345 memorandum from Lord Balfour to Lord Curzon, August 11, 1919.

In many instances the so-called Arab leaders were nothing more than paid employees or appointees of the British Colonial Office or the Jewish Agency. See for example the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement and the subsequent Colonial Office arrangements with sheriffians like the Emir of Jordan, and King of Iraq.

Haj Amin el Husseini had been sentenced to 14 years in prison, but was subsequently released and elected Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in a contest that was rigged by Sir Herbert Samuel, who was a Zionist and the British High Commissioner. Nonethless, Zionists have been complaining ever since that Husseini was a despicable fellow. See for example: Haj Amin El Husseini

According to Israeli historian Simha Flapan ('Zionism and the Palestinians') when the Muslim and Christian Leagues of Palestine petitioned for a local plebiscite, Chaim Kalvarisky the director of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association began funding Pan-Syrian Nationalist movement organizations and newspapers. In much the same way, several current and former U.S. intelligence officials say that Israel gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative" see: Hamas history tied to Israel, By Richard Sale UPI Terrorism Correspondent

This article should also mention the fact that the colonial process of conquest used by Great Britain and the League of Nations to establish the Jewish homeland in Palestine is no longer permitted under international law. The United States itself took a leading role in organizing the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, and in promoting the Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition. See also: UNSC Res. 446 The Fourth Geneva Convention, The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) Definition of Aggression

The claim that there was universal recognition of some sort of exclusive Jewish national right to the land of Palestine is totally incorrect. The King-Crane Commission Report, of 1919 noted: "the intense opposition of the Arabs and the Christians to the Zionist Program." and recommended "serious modification of the extreme Zionist program for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish State." The commission noted that there were over six hundred thousand Arab residents. The commission stated:

"[A] national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase."

Those demographic figures weren't disputed by the leadership of the Zionist Organization at the time. Later when Nahum Goldmann was the representative of the Jewish Agency to the League of Nations in Geneva, and the President of the WZO. He wrote:

'Even Theodor Herzl's brilliantly simple formulation of the Jewish Question as basically a transportation problem of 'moving people without a home into a land without a people' is tinged with disquieting blindness to the Arab claim to Palestine. Palestine was not a land without people even in Hertl's time; it was inhabited by hundreds of thousands of Arabs who, in the course of events, would sooner or later have achieved independent statehood, either alone or as a unit within a larger Arab context. -- Memories: the autobiography of Nahum Goldmann: The story of a lifelong battle by world Jewry's ambassador at large

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION, Presented to Parliament in JUNE, 1922 is part of the UN Palestine League of Nations Document Archive. The delegation noted:

"the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone."

A review of the 1922 Churchill White Paper indicates that the British Colonial Office didn't hold a favorable view of the proposed Jewish state either. Years later the Anglo-America Committee of Inquiry heard from both Jewish and Arab groups who rejected the Zionist program. See the Churchill White Paper, The Report of The Anglo-America Committee of Inquiry [16]

In 1945 both Houses of Congress proposed bills endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The American Council for Judaism and The American Jewish Committee presented a written memorandum recommending deferment of "the controversial question of the Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine" and the bills were tabled. see: THE AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK, Volume 46 pages 206-208.

The Hague Convention went into effect in 1910. It precluded the occupying colonial powers from confiscating private property or real estate, and required them to enforce the existing laws of the land, absent negotiated armistice and peace treaty agreements. See articles 43 & 46.

That only left "so-called" state and waste lands. The British appointed a High Commissioner (Sir Herbert Samuel) who had previously served as an advisor to the Zionist Agency. He began the process of creating a cadastral map and started designating many parcels of "waste" or "state land". That survey of Palestine was never actually completed. see: The Survey of Palestine Under the British Mandate, 1920-1948, Dr. Dov Gavish.

Samuel enacted new land legislation that took effect before Great Britain had any legal standing as the League of Nations Mandatory power. The government of Turkey had rejected the Allied terms contained in The Treaty of Sèvres. It became a legal nullity, but it wasn't replaced, until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923. By then, the 1922 British White paper had already been published. It explained that the British government never had any intention of establishing a Jewish state in Palistine. Any "state lands" would have necessarily reverted to the proposed Palestinian state after a brief period of tutelege under the League of Nations.

The article disingenuously cites Mark Twain's "Innocents Abroad" as if it were a peer reviewed research paper. Twain could have written about mud, adobe, or sod houses and malaria without ever leaving home. Neither Israel nor the United States controlled malaria until the 1960s. Sod homes and schools were used throughout the Great Plains states of America until the early 1940s. Many pro-Zionist sources only cite passages of Innocents Abroad that depict Palestine as a wasteland, but Twain claimed that much of Samaria was under full cultivation. For example:

'The narrow canon in which Nablous, or Shechem, is situated, is under high cultivation, and the soil is exceedingly black and fertile. It is well watered, and its affluent vegetation gains effect by contrast with the barren hills that tower on either side. One of these hills is the ancient Mount of Blessings and the other the Mount of Curses and wise men who seek for fulfillments of prophecy think they find here a wonder of this kind--to wit, that the Mount of Blessings is strangely fertile and its mate as strangely unproductive. We could not see that there was really much difference between them in this respect, however.' http://www.mtwain.com/Innocents_Abroad/53.html

"Innocents Abroad" was a literary satire. Twain held some of the usual colonialist and orientalist assumptions of the day, but he openly mocked Christian and Jewish claims to Arab-held lands in Palestine. see: Tom Sawyer Abroad Chapter 1

It is often claimed that Achad Ha-Am commented in 1891 that there was no idle farmland available in Palestine. That is certainly the case today. Only 15-16 percent of the land in modern Israel is arable or otherwise suitable for farming. See the CIA factbook.

The Jewish National Fund acknowleges that there is a severe water crisis and that "Sixty percent of Israel’s fresh water goes to the agricultural sector—down from 72 percent. While current quotas have reduced agricultural consumption of water resources, they have also put many farmers out of business. Dropping agricultural consumption even further would mean, among a host of other consequences, the inability to sustain communities in the Negev, Arava and Galilee, and thus the loss of Israel’s future land reserves."

Many sources claim that Jewish landowners possessed only 6-7 percent of the land by the time of the War of Independence. It is seldom explained that this figure might have represented approximately one-half of all the available arable land, and that the Labor-Socialist kibbutzim and union movement had created a sizable group of landless Arab tenant sharecroppers who had previously relied on those same lands for their own subsistance farming operations.

In his first speech in the House of Lords in 1922, Lord Balfour defended the Rutenberg concession and claimed "He could conceive of no political interest enjoying greater safeguards than the interests of the Arab population". He also defended the Balfour Declaration saying "A Jewish government was not necessarily a consequence of the establishment of a Jewish home." Lord Islington had moved that the acceptance of the Palestine mandate should be postponed until such modifications had been effected as would comply with the pledges given. He referred to the Rutenberg concession, and said that the scheme, unless subjected to enormous modifications, would give to a Jewish citizen wide powers over the Arab population in connection with social, economic, and industrial conditions.

Nonetheless, in 1926, the British High Commissioner granted the Jewish owned Palestine Electricity Corporation, founded by Pinhas Rutenberg, a 70 year concession to utilize the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers' water for generating electricity. The concession denied Arab farmers the right to use the Yarmouk and Jordan Rivers' water upstream of their junction for any reason, unless permission was granted from the Palestine Electricity Corporation. Permission was never granted. See: University of Waterloo's "Roots of the Water Conflict in the Middle East", by Jad Isaac and Leonardo Hosh and Palestine Mandate Discussed in the Lords

West Bank Palestinians can no longer obtain any water from the Lower Jordan River either. Although the Israeli National Water Carrier "Mekorot" was first established by the members of the oupost at Degania, that portion of the Jordan river is little more than a sewage canal today. see: The Master Of Water Policy and Development In Israel and Lower Jordan River is open sewage canal, environmentalists say

The Hope Simpson Royal Commission Report of 1930 extolled the virtue of draining Lake Hulah, the surrounding swamps and marshes:

'At the time of the Occupation Palestine was a country saturated with malaria. Since that time much good work has been done, not only by agencies of the country, but also with the help of outside scientific enquirers. The Rockefeller Foundation, the League of Nations, the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee have all rendered invaluable assistance in investigation, in research and in advice. Very much has been done in the drainage of swamps and marshes, in great part by Jewish agency and in great part by the Government. Much, however, still remains to be done. Huleh is a plague spot. The malaria of that part of Palestine will not be finally overcome until the Huleh Lake is drained and there is a free flow of water out of the Basin into the Jordan River. There are wide areas in the neighbourhood of Acre where drainage is necessary. There are still swampy areas in the Maritime Plain.'

In 1958 the UN Nations Resolutions 92 and 93 condemned Israel for violating the Syrian-Israeli DMZ in order to drain Lake Huleh. Israel has acknowledged that the draining of the Hula Swamps in the Galilee, part of the water works plan that also built the National Water Carrier (Mekeroth), was a mistake. The land obtained by this process eventually proved to be unsuitable for farming: see "Israel floods drained swamp to bring in tourists", New Scientist and World Water Crisis

Also see the University of Arizona study conducted for the International Arid Lands Consortium (IALC): "In the late 1950s Lake Hula and its surrounding swamps, located in the northern part of Israel, were drained by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) giving over most of the area to agriculture. This was a Zionist action aimed at sanitizing the malaria-infestation in the Hula valley and turn the area over into suitable land for agriculture.... ...The interference in the natural system of the Hula valley caused a series of physical and biogeochemical irreversible problems: the peat soils decomposed and settled leading to deterioration of the soil quality and narrowing by 10-20 % the land suitable for cultivation; peat fires accelerated causing dust storms; poisonous weeds spread out; field mice multiplied; indigenous fauna and flora disappeared; water bird population declined; and the quality of water in Lake Kinneret has been impaired. By the end of the 1980's it became evident that a rapid action of restoration was essential."

During the 19th century the Holy Land was practically overrun with American and British tourists, scholars, evangelists, writers, visiting government officials, and artists. Many saw America as a New Israel, a modern nation chosen to do God's work on Earth. They produced a variety of inspirational art and literature about their travels in the "original promised land". Twain's travelogue aimed to mock their romantic ideas, while pointing out the incongruity of their exalted notions of humble Palestine in contrast to his eyewitness description of plague ridden reality on the ground. See: Princeton Pupress and works like The Land of Israel, a Journal of Travels with Reference to Its Physical History (1865), The Natural History of the Bible (1867), The Daughters of Syria (1872), Land of Moab (1874), Pathways of Palestine (1882), The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884), and Eastern Customs in Bible Lands (1894) by Henry Baker Tristram.

In fact, Twain frequently took considerable license, since he described empty landscapes where towns like Ramallah had stood since the 16th century. Many towns and villages he overlooked had already been described in detail by the other literature of the day, such as the accounts of the punitive expedition of Ibrahim Pasha in the 1840s, or the atlas prepared by Pierre Jacotin during Napolean's campaigns. There were even some U.S. Navy expeditions to map the Jordan river see for example: Commission des sciences et arts d'Egypte; Panckoucke, C. L. F. (Charles Louis Fleury), 1780-1844 and of the United States' Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea by W. F. Lynch, U.S.N., Commander of the Expedition 1849.

Jewish citrus growing began to develop in 1855, when Sir Moses Montefiore purchased an Arab orchard near Mikveh Israel, hoping to create jobs for yishuv hayashan, the Jews living in the country at the time. The plantation farming techniques employed during the first Aliyah were not very successful. During that period the Jewish community relied heavily on Arab labor and know how. According to Haaretz: 'In the late 1990s, another crisis hit the industry, as a result of three years of drought, which led to a cutback of about 50 percent in the water quotas to farmers. "The citrus growers had two options: to use half the amount of water, or to give up half the area of the orchard. Most chose the second option' see: Haaretz Hasen

I find the statement that "The majority of the Jews and Jewish groups accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation." to be extremely doubtful. Those same Jewish authorities adopted the Biltmore program and they never accepted the provisions of the UN plan of partition with respect to the proposed International Zone. There have been numerous disclosures regarding the understanding that existed between the Jewish Agency and the Kingdom of Transjordan in regard to the nascent Arab state as well. Both the Agency and the King wanted to prevent the establishment of the new independent Arab state. They conspired together to arrange for the Arab Legion to occupy the Arab portion of the UN partition and throw any permanent borders into dispute. These reports aren't limited to the so-called "New Historians". One of them was documented at the time by the U.S. State Department. The declassified materials were subsequently published in the "Foreign Relalions of the United States" series by the Government Printing Office. See for example:

Israel and the Arab Coalition in 1948, Avi Shlaim:

Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Rafael's report on Moshe Sharett's discussions of the understanding during a meeting with US Secretary of State George C. Marshall on 12 May 1948 in 'Fifty Years' at the Liddel Hart Military Center.

A review of 'The Foreign Relalions of the United States 1948, Vol. V: The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Part 11. Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Office, is available online in PRINCIPLE AND EXPEDIENCY:THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND PALESTINE, 1948 JUSTUS D. DOENECKE Department of Hitory, New College of the University of South Florida.

The Provisional Government of Israel repeatedly refused to recognize the right of the UN or its Truce Commission to designate Jerusalem as a neutral zone. See for example: TEXT OF CABLEGRAM FROM JOHN J. MACDONALD,CHAIRMAN OF THE PALESTINE TRUCE COMMISSION

The Haganah also planned to setup an airfield on Arab land in the neutral Jerusalem sector:

[L]earn that you plan an attack on Deir Yassin... ...I wish to point out that the capture of Deir Yassin and its holding are one stage in our general plan. If you are unable to do so I warn you against blowing up the village which will result in its inhabitants abandoning it and its ruins and deserted houses being occupied by foreign forces....Furthermore, if foreign forces took over, this would upset our general plan for establishing an airfield. harlan 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WHAT is going on in these sentences?

"..three were extremely fertile in 1947, but were largely uninhabitable before 1900 due to silting caused by deforestation. The resulting marshes allowed mosquitos to breed, but also made potential farmland available to Jewish settlers. (Mark Twain's travel journal, Innocents Abroad conveys a vivid description of malaria in Palestine in the 1870's.) Jewish settler dried up swamps, cultivated and irrigated the land, which had gone largely unnoticed and barren for centuries.[17].."

Firstly, what does this source refer to? Clearly in the link, everyting from Palestinian refugees to Gulf War is discussed, yet Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad was written in 1869, more than 120 years before all this. Therefore this link can't point to Mark Twain's work.

Also, the link is VERY HEAVILY BIASED against Arabs. What is relevence of quoting an 1869 work that reflects the opinions of one person, who was no head of state, nor miltary person, and whose work is heavily biased with his own opinions? This may belong in something discussing Palestinian history in the 19th Century, but has little to do with 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the only decades holding much relevence in this article. Bless sins 00:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Malaria was rampant throughout much of the world in Twain's time, including in the United States where Twain lived [18]. So the fact that malaria existed in Palestine is not notable. As for drying up of swamps, both the JNF and the British did a lot of that during the Mandate period. The British also spent a lot of money spraying DDT around to kill mosquitos. These are facts that could be in Wikipedia, but it should not look like a Zionist colouring book and it should stay on-topic. This article is supposed to be about the 1947 partition plan. Twain and swamps and malaria are way too marginal. The tendency of every mid-east article to expand until it covers the whole Arab-Israeli conflict should be resisted. --Zero^talk 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My I add another reason to your argument. Mark Twain, was NOT a significant historian nor a political figure who had considerable influence on the 1947 UN Partition Plan. In addition, his work was published about 80 years before 1947, (and his journey and ideas are even older). The connection is just too weak to draw. Also, see my initial comments. Bless sins 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume the lack of response as a show of no-confidence in these sentences?Bless sins 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The drying up of swamps by the Zionists is something very notable and not disputed. Situations like Petach Tikva etc are of course very important to note. and important for the article. If Twain is not a good source for this for some reason many other sources will be added - this fact needs to be represented it's important for the background. You're right about that it has no conection to Twain, it has a connection of its own which is important - it being biased is of no concern it's your OR, it's a good source. Amoruso 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The drying up of swamps is probably an important part of Israeli history, what significance does it have in the UN Plan? Also, when was this "drying" carried out? If it occured before 1910s, then it is not as notable, because a lot of significant events happened in between 1917-1947 that are not included for brevity and clarity. Regardless neither Mark Twain nor the source posted make any sense, whatsoever, with the sentences that are part of the article. Bless sins 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the the current source (linked to the personal blog of Jerry Bower), as it is not a credible source. Also, all we have from that source is some one named "Joe"* saying: "Yes, there were a lot of swamps, there was a lot of malaria and it wasn't up to medical science and the Israelis drained the swamps and controlled completely the malaria. " The sentence does not mention the time when this happened nor where in Palestine/Israel did this take place. Where are the references to "Joe"'s research?

Also, if we consider this source to be a good source, we have to accept sentences like:

• "the West Bank is that piece on the Israeli side that is in Arab possession". What scholar denies the existence of a Palestinian homeland (in West Bank and Gaza Strip)?.
• " because there had been Arab annihilation of Arabs before". So there have been Arab genocides of Arabs??

Starred note:

• Why is "Professor Joseph Kickasola", not referred to by his proper name (either first or last). This is one indiciation that this interview is just come casual talk, not scholarly statements on the history of Middle east.

Bless sins 17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with the link. This is a statement from Professor Joseph Kickasola, what does it matter how the interview referrs to him. anyway, I'm restoring it you can add some tag to it and I'll take one from one of the books sometime. Amoruso 17:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with this, I have already pointed them out, and will point them out again:

• Firstly, is the relevency of the subject. If the draining of marshes happened more than 40 years before the plan, chances are it not relevent. For example, in the article you will notice, there is information regarding the demographics of Palestine the decade before this plan, but there is little info indicating the demographics in 1890s or 1900s - simply becuase information that long ago is not relevent to how the United Nations divided the land. The information, however, would be welcome in the articles about Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip.
• Secondly is the info. The source does not mention, when did this happen?, which parts of Palestine did this happen in?. These are all valuable info, because wihtout this it looks like that Jews drained entire Palestine where there was no Arab before (which is CERTAINLY NOT TRUE). The information provided is very low quality general statements. The source also makes some very unreasonable statements (such "Arab annihilation of Arabs" prior to 1949).
• The information would not be a problem if it came from a quality source. The link posted is to a personal blog. Wikipeida says "... personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29.
• Finally a question to you: what do you think makes Professor Joseph Kickasola an expert in 20th Century Middle-Eastern history? I have not found any credentials that suggest this.

Bless sins 18:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been editing the article, and I can't stress enough how importnat it is to not include events and figures more than 40 years before 1947. Doing so, would create a mess of historic figures that belong in British Mandate of Palestine, History of Israel and other articles.Bless sins 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote by Pappe deserves to remain there since he is a is a senior lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University and the Academic Director of the Research Institute for Peace at Givat Haviva. The book in which this quote appears is one endorsed by the Cambridge University. Thu the opinions posted meet the condition os a scholarly source. You calling it "crap" is nothing but WP:OR. Please leave the quote there.Bless sins 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the picture of the front of the newspaper Yeridot has little relevence in this article. Since most visitors can't read Hebrew, this isn't of any use. In any case, visitors to this article are more in interested in the history/politics of the plan than the Hebrew language/culture. Finally, the Yeridot (unlike Haaretz or Jerusalem Post) is not too notable. IF we began postings healines from minor newspapers, then that will make the article a mess. Also we should avoid citing popular press. Bless sins 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yediot happens to be the largest newspaper in Israel, by a large margin. Get a clue. Isarig 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we headlines from the largest newspapers of Iraq, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt (all involved in the first Arab-Israeli war). Should we post headlines from Britain the colonial power at the time. IF we did this article would be about newspaper headlines and not the 1947 UN partition plan.Bless sins 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You made the ignorant comment that "Yeridot (unlike Haaretz or Jerusalem Post) is not too notable. IF we began postings healines from minor newspapers". I pointed out your error. The proper response is to humbly admit you have no clue, not to launch another tirade. To answer your questions: By all means, post relevant headlines from other papers of the time. Isarig 03:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I was in error about the Yeridot, (though I am still not convinced that Yeridot is the most popular newspaper in Israel until presented with a proper source).

You can start your education by actually learning the proper name - it is Yedi'ot, , not Yeridot, a mistake you have repeated twice already, despite having been corrected before. A simple lookup on WP would have provided you with this. Isarig 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"By all means, post relevant headlines from other papers of the time." IF I were to do that I would be merely trashing the article with useless POV. The article would then become more about newspapers reporting the event than the actual event itself. The Newspaper does not give us any new info not already provided by the article.Bless sins 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for you response.Bless sins 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures which accompany WP articles usually do not add info not already in the article, but provide a graphical representation of the material being discussed. This picture, of a relevant contemporary headline, is just such visual enhancement. If you want to add to it or replace it with a similar headline, from another newspaper, that would be ok. Isarig 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo of the paper is a huge historical notation and should stay of course. It being in Hebrew is what makes it special, it's something historic for the State of Israel, if you have something similar or joyous remark in Arabic for the occasion, it would be great too. Amoruso 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also why do you keep posting unsourced statements tagged with {{Fact}}, without providing sources??Bless sins 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

which statements would those be? Isarig 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The following:*Much of the Jewish population, especially in rural areas, lived on land leased from Arab owners.

• The precise amount of land owned by local Arabs and the state has been subject to considerable dispute as the Ottoman Empire did not maintain an accurate land registration system and many land claims consisted of little more than contracts between private parties that may or may not have been based on actual possession
• plan was a compromise position based on two other plans.
• three were extremely fertile in 1947, but were largely uninhabitable before 1900 due to silting caused by deforestation

Please quit adding them. Bless sins 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? These statements do not appear in my edits. They were commented out (before my edits), and remain commented out. Your bad faith here knows no limits- it appears you did not bother ot even read my version before reverting it! Isarig

Yes they do. The fact that they are commented out means nothing. These statements have no verification to them whatsoever, and you have no right to put them back in the article - hidden or visible. These statements MUST be kept out of the article (whether commented out or not), becuase they are not verified by some reliable source. Please read WP:verifiability for more info.Bless sins 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to the quaint opinion that statements that are commented out are actually part of the article, but this unusual opinion is not grounded in reality. They do not appear in the text of the visible article, and their inclusion, as commented out text serves a purpose - it enables editors to work on finding suitable sources for them. Isarig 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SOme of these statements have been there before I came to wikipedia even (I came here several months ago). How much more time do users require to find sources for these claims (2 weeks?, 1 month?). Why is it that you yourself don't even allow an unsourced statement to survive even one day[19]?? Bless sins 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please stop removing sourced statements to Pappe (a scholar)'s book which is endorsed by the Cambridge University.Bless sins 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pappe's statement is nonsensical - it claims the Arab attack on Ef'al was part of the Hagana Plan. It is either not properly sourced, or is a lunatic fringe opinion which we are bound to keep out in accordance with Wp:npov#Undue_weight. Isarig 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the "Cambridge University's" mean anything to you? That is exactly who endorsed this book, from which the quote is drawn. You can go check the book and you'll find the quote.Bless sins 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant... there are all sorts of people in universities but Pappe himeslf is largely discredited for hoaxes already. Anyway, he's being sourced already, no need to quote more from his book than that sentence is enough. Amoruso 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How is his scholarly reputation irrelevent. You and Isarig have added statements that are not even sourced (let alone sourced to poor sources). When others and I add Pappe's well-sourced statements published by one of the World's most prestigious universities, you go ahead and delete them.

It needs to be said who was behind the rioting and the destruction, and who was provoking it. Bless sins 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask you, which unsourced statement have I added? Why do you persist in making up this allegation ? Isarig 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already mentioned those above. The Pappe statement belongs there, because it si relevent and also very scholarly.Bless sins 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pappe may be a scholar, but a statement that claims an attack by Arabs was part of a Jewish plan is not "very scholarly" - it is a lunatic, fringe conspiracy theory that must be kept out of the article according to our undue weight policy. Isarig 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pappe is not only a scholar, the statements he has made in the book is recognized as very scholarly by the Cambridge University. Don't tell me you think that the best University in the world (for arts & humanities) is "lunatic", and supports a "fringe conspiracy theory"??Bless sins 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you go on and on about this, it's time we put this nonsense to rest, too. The University of Cambridge does not endorse or support this statement, or any other specific statement made by Pappe in this book. The university's printing house, Cambridge University Press, published this book, that's all. And again, no matter who says it, or who endorses it, a claim that an attack by party X against party Y is part of a plan by party Y is, on its face, a lunatic conspiracy theory that requires extraordinary evidence. Until such evidence is produced, WP's policy of undue weight means this statement can't appear here. Isarig 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Cambridge University Press published this book is evidence that the Cambridge University does not look at this book as a lunatic theory. Pappe isn't even suggesting conspiracy, but only that the Hagany provoked the Arabs.

The sentence I removed, attributed to Pappe, said this was part of Plan D. That is textbook conspiracy theory. Isarig 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you said "that an attack by party X against party Y is part of a plan by party Y is, on its face, a lunatic conspiracy theory ". This is nothing but WP:OR. There have been many provocations in the military history.

Claiming that one side would "provoke" the other side into killing many members of the civilian population of the first side is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary proof, well beyond the say-so of a known extremist. Isarig 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking about "extraordinary evidence". Can you come up with evidence that the senior lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University and the Academic Director of the Research Institute for Peace at Givat Haviva is a "lunatic"??? That is indeed an exceptional claim!Bless sins 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I've given you that proof, above: regardless of the occupation of the claimant, if he claims an attack on party X by party Y which kills many of party X, is pre-planned by X, he is voicing a lunatic conspiracy theory. Isarig 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from a scholarly source, and that's all it needs to stay. You counter-opinons so far are nothing but WP:OR.Bless sins 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

the qoute is fringe opinion, and lunatic conspiracy theory, and it stays out. Isarig 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Palestine as "Western Palestine"

The phrase "The plan would have partitioned the territory of Western Palestine.." is as much politically motivated as historically inadequate. There was no such thing as "Western Palestine" in the discourse of the time; even before the granting of sovereignty to Trans-Jordan, Trans-Jordan was referred to as "Trans-Jordan", not "Eastern Palestine", and "Palestine" was referred to as "Palestine", not "Western Palestine". There was the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (not "Western Palestine"), the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine (not "Western Palestine"), etc etc etc. The cited phrase will mislead readers.Yuriy Krynytskyy 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Bless sins 12:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Referring to Western Palestine as "Western Palestine"

The Palestine Exploration Fund http://www.pef.org.uk/ published surveys and maps of Western Palestine (aka Cisjordan) starting in the mid-19th century. According to the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, 'portions of Syria' lying to the EAST of 'the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo,' were NOT included in the proposed Lebanon 'delimitation'. Great Britain was therefore pledged to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions of southern Syria lying within that eastern frontier - which included most of Transjordan. That region was NEVER the subject of the Balfour Declaration, and was excluded from the League of Nations Mandate provisions regarding the establishment of a Jewish National Home before the Mandate ever took effect.

It had already been announced that 'Transjordan was to have it's independence' and that 'it would be admitted into the United Nations Organization' before UNSCOP ever took up the 'question of Palestine'. see Palestine Post 25 Jan 1946 wherein (even) the Jewish Agency spokesman, Moshe Sharett, referred to the regions as 'Western Palestine' and Transjordan. As a result, the UNSCOP Plan of Partition dealt exclusively with the partition of 'Western Palestine' - NOT with Transjordan.

Between 1948 and 1967, Transjordan and portions of Cisjordan (the West Bank) were under the government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. harlan (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Defacement

I see some defacement on the page, in the section "The Division". I was going to remove it, but it appears in place of "PENIS" in the source it says {{Israeli}}. I can't seem to find it, so I figured I would tell you guys in the discussion page so you could remove it yourselves.  :)--Keithg 09:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Population number table

Simple speaking population number table is POV. POV has been even UNSCOP raport because they have writen number of arabs and jews (like people ?) but beduins like what is they are not in population table ? In partiton projekt for birth of Israel state has been that in Arab state will live 99 % arabs and 1 % jews, but in Jews state 50 % jews and 50 % others (arabs, beduins and others) and in this way it must be in population table. I am afraid that around that there will be revert war started by me. Rjecina 21:52, 22 april 2007 (CET)

Good sources

You guys should read: "A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time" by Howard M. Sachar, Ph.D. (Professor Emeritus of History and International Affairs George Washington University)

Position: Pro Two-State Solution to the question "What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" Reasoning: "A two-state solution is not only acceptable. It is indispensable."

In an e-mail response to ProCon. org, 06/21/06

Credibility Ranking: Experts Members of Congress, Ambassadors, Counsul Generals, heads of government, members of legislative bodies, and Ph.D.'s with significant involvement in, or related to, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Involvement: Area concentration: Middle Eastern and European History Consultant and lecturer on Middle Eastern affairs for the United States Foreign Service Institute Guest Lecturer at the Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, and John Hopkins University

Education: Ph.D., Harvard University, M.A., Harvard University, B.A., Swarthmore College

Affiliations/Honors: Member of the American Historical Association; Two-time recipient of the National Jewish Book Award; Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa, from the Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996

or "A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" by Mark Tessler

Samuel J. Eldersveld Collegiate Professor Director, International Institute Vice Provost for International Affairs Research Professor, Center for Political Studies Ph.D., Northwestern

MARK TESSLER is Samuel J. Eldersveld Collegiate Professor of Political Science. He is also Vice Provost for International Affairs and Director of the University’s International Institute. Professor Tessler specializes in Comparative Politics and Middle East Studies. He has studied and/or conducted field research in Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Egypt, and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). He is one of the very few American scholars to have attended university and lived for extended periods in both the Arab world and Israel. He has also spent several years teaching and consulting in Sub-Saharan Africa.

or "The Arab Iaraeli Dilemma" by Fred J. Khouri (1951; B.A., 1938, M.A., 1939, Ph.D., 1953, Columbia University. Professor Emeritus, Political Science) He has devoted approximately 30 years of study to the Arab-Israeli and other Middle Eastern problems. He traveled extensively through the Middle East between 1958 and 1984. He was a visiting professor at the American University of Beirut (AUB) from 1961 to 1964 while on leave from Villanova University.

These are good sources. ~K —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KathrynBeth (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Error in Map: 1947 UN-partition Plan

In 1947 Jordan was called Transjordan. Could someone pls correct this error. I do not know how to.--84.153.126.64 08:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this would be to find another, better, map. But then again should we correct this "error"? This map is from a reliable source and so I don't see a problem with it.Bless sins 10:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Which "reliable" source are you referring to? 2. We all know that in 1947 today's Jordan was called Transjordan.--84.153.84.157 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this official UN map of the partition plan dated 1946 says "Jordan, formerly Transjordan". --Zero^talk 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The map is based on a 1946 map. But Transjordan became Jordan only after 1949. (source : Gelber) Alithien 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The map is dated February 1956, not 1946. This is not the first time that Zero has attempted this subtle misrepresentation. Isarig 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Isarig 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not fix it properly. Your fix is somewhat graphically inadequate. Moreover, the former version, last modified and here defended by Zero is all over the various wikipedias and was transferred by your opponent, Zero, into wikimedia commons. Of course you cannot expect your encyclopedical opponent to do all this work for you.

It is also interesting to note, that the "official" UN information site on the question of palestine (UNSIPAL) claims to exhibit Annex A of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), yet in fact exhibits a map remade in 1956.--Ploppp 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two partitions

The committee majority proposal of September (see map) differed significantly from the actual proposal that was voted on in November (see map), and it is not clear which partition is described in the "The Division" section. In particular, the population distribution table refers to the September plan. I think this should be clarified.--Doron 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with table are numbers. Yes this is offical table but this table is POV, because she try to show that majority population (more of 50 %) of Israel are jews. In reality they have been only 49 % (other 51 % has been arabs, beduins and others). .--Rjecina 2:27, 27 May 2007 (CET)

I'm not talking about that. In my opinion, the table in whole is of little importance because it describes the population distribution according to a preliminary partition scheme. I wonder if we could get figures about the boundaries that were actually adopted by the UN (in November).--Doron 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I do not remember ever seeing figures for the final partition boundaries, though surely they exist. We can guess (this is OR so stop reading!). A first approximation would be to adjust the Sept figures for the transfer of Jaffa and Beersheva. At the end of 1946, Jaffa had 54,000 Muslims and 17,000 Christians. It also had 31,000 Jews but I don't know if they were included in the enclave (the boundary might have been drawn to exclude the Jewish neighborhood of Jaffa on the Tel Aviv side). Beersheva had 6000 Muslims. The other places marked on the map such as Qalqilya were a lot smaller but the total of all the villages might have been significant. Some of the 90,000 bedouin in the Jewish state on the Sept boundaries would have been in the Arab state at the Nov boundaries due to bits of the Negev being transferred. --Zero^talk 09:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an article in the Palestine Post of Nov 27, 1947, page 4, listing all the changes made to the partition boundaries and the population consequences in most cases. You can get to it starting here; I don't see how to make a direct link. My guess about the Jewish quarter of Jaffa was correct. Now who can find the same information at domino? If not, a UN citation that will let me look it up in the official records would be nice. --Zero^talk 10:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course there's the text of UNGA resolution 181 [20], with the description of the Arab enclave of Jaffa, which seems to exclude all Jewish quarters of Jaffa (and, supposedly, exclude all Arab population of Jaffa from the Jewish State), though it does not say so explicitly. Surprisingly, the boundary was not fully determined -- the question of including the Karton Quarter (wonder what that is?), which according to the PP had 3,000 Arabs, was to be decided later...

As for linking, how about this or this? (let's see if they're stable)--Doron 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding together the numbers in the Palestine Post and taking 70,000 as the Arab population of Jaffa (not given by PP), the overall effect of the adjustment was that the Jewish State lost 79,500+ Arabs and gained 1,800 Jews. Rounding to the nearest 1000, this makes the adjusted populations: Arab State 805,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews; Jewish State 327,000 non-Jews and 500,000 Jews. Bedouin not included. --Zero^talk 12:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. I got a different number of Arabs, though, what did I miss? I got 2,100+400-3,000-6,000-14,500+1,000+4,500=-15,500 (not including Jaffa). Oh, and this also does not include Beersheba. As for nomads, I think there's a problem here. My guess is that the 90,000 figure does not refer to permanent inhabitants of the areas included in the Jewish State, since they weren't permanent inhabitants at all and weren't counted as such. I don't know if one could say they resided in one part of the Negev more than another part, or another part of Palestine for that matter. It is not clear what was meant by "In addition there will be ... about 90,000 ... who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons", doesn't look like a reference to permanent population. Besides, all figures are based (as far as I can see) on the 1945 Survey. The table figures sum up to the same figures of the 1945 Survey (608K Jews, 1,237K non-Jews), which as far as I remember include nomads, hence nomads are already counted (so adding those 90,000 either way is double-counting them).

Now the big question is how do we take all this and make it non-OR? Perhaps the best thing would be to give the table exactly as it is given in the UNSCOP report, then describe all changes to the border and population as given in PP, with the additional information about Jaffa and Beersheba based on the 1945 Village Statistics report.

By the way, Morris in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 in the end of the first chapter (Hebrew edition) gives 520,000 Jews and 350,000 Arabs, in reference to a speech by Ben-Gurion. It is not clear where these figures come from.--Doron 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your PP links bring up the full-page image but they seem to lack some javascript that is required to open the individual articles. My reading of item #7 is that the net total for this item was 14,500 comprising 6,000 in one part and 8,500 in a second part (almost illegible on the 4th last line). I agree that Beersheva is not counted; that was around 6,000. Including that 6,000 adjustment, that makes the new figures: Arab State 811,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews; Jewish State 321,000 non-Jews and 500,000 Jews. In light of your comments, I'm not sure how bedouin figure here. --Zero^talk 09:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article can be linked thus. Yes, I counted the 6,000 twice.--Doron 10:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I liked this quote (from PP): "Mr. Johnson said that arguments for defence did not impress him since he believed any disturbances in Palestine would be minor and of short duration, while state boundaries were permanent". Was he in for a surprise...--Doron 11:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

On 25 November 1947 an amendment to the plan was passed that allowed the boundaries to be adjusted on the spot in Palestine by the Border Commission. The amendment was introduced by the delegation from the Netherlands.

The borders in the GA-181 plan cut-off 54 Arab villages from their farm land. The discussion before the vote indicated that inclusion of those villages in the Jewish state COULD have added as many as 108,000 more Arabs to the population. harlan (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Consequences

"On the day after the vote, a spate of Arab attacks left seven Jews dead and scores more wounded. Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued apace in the following days. The consulates of Poland and Sweden, both of whose governments had voted for partition, were attacked. Bombs were thrown into cafes, Molotov cocktails were hurled at shops, a synagogue was set on fire. On December 3, at the instigation of the Palestinian leadership, a large mob ransacked the new Jewish commercial center in Jerusalem, looting and burning shops and stabbing and stoning whomever they happened upon. The next day, some 120-150 armed Arabs attacked Kibbutz Efal, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, in the first large-scale attempt to storm a Jewish village."

This paragraph appears to be a copy and past from the source. I've got a few POV problems with it as well, but I'd rather leave it up to you guys rather than remove or change it myself.Ticklemygrits 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous inaccuracies

There are miscellaneous inaccuracies and distortions that are all biased in one direction. Apparently Wikipedia rules about requiring citation of sources do not apply to articles about Israel & Palestinian issues:

1. The British were committed to supporting the establishment in Palestine after a draft declaration was written by Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann. - The document that committed the British was the Balfour Declaration, which was a very heavily edited draft of a letter that Weizmann had submitted at the REQUEST of Balfour. The international community was committed by the League of Nations mandate of 1922, which incorporated the above
2. While some Arab leaders opposed the right of the Zionists to establish a state in the region, others criticized the amount and quality of land given to Israel. I don't think it will be possible to find any major Arab leader who was ready to countenance a Jewish state of any size and who would say so in public. Even King Abdullah was only willing, in private to allow a Jewish territory as part of Trasnjordan. What is the source or justification for the statement that there were Arab leaders who publicly agreed to a Jewish state, and who were these leaders??
3. Soon After, the Jews launched numerous similar attacks, including massacring the entire village of Deir Yassin. This statement is as close as one can come to a total falsehood. By all accounts, about 100-110 people were killed in Deir Yassin, out of a population of about 800 - swelled to twice that number because of a wedding feast and refugees. Therefore, the entire village was not massacred, even accepting the accounts of Benny Morris and others. No source that I know of claims any more that the entire village was massacred. The massacre took place on April 9, 1948, 5 months after partition. Not "soon after." It belongs in an article about the civil war and not here. The massacre was not committed by "the Jews" in general but by the Irgun and Lehi dissidents. There are numerous other cases where this article is biased and unscholarly.

Mewnews (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (AKA resolution 181)

The title for the article have changed. Can we somehow get back the 181 nominator, perhaps by putting it in the first sentence of the lead? So that even old people (from Korea?) will know that they have come to the right place. MX44 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181" is in the first paragraph at the top... AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Source request for "One state was absent: Thailand"

Does there exist a UN-document that proofs this statement? --89.244.186.185 (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaffa Majority

per this diff: [21]

The reference to mideast web doesn't say what is being made to say in the paragraph, most notably "Due to the significant Jewish population in Jaffa, the Jewish State would have an overall large Arab minority." The use of sources to say something that is not said within them falls, on many occassions, as a violation of WP:SYN. I believe this to be such a case. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's phrased in a confusing manner, anyway -- Jaffa town had an Arab majority, while the largest town in Jaffa district was actually Tel-Aviv (not Jaffa). AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Conequences section

An anonymous user recently blanked much of this section, until his edit was reverted by User:Jayjg. Jayjg was right to revert, of course, since the anon left no message on this talk page and no edit summary. However, I've taken another look at this section, and it does seem to include an undue selection of incidents from the war. Couldn't the last few paragraphs (starting from "Fighting began...") be replaced by a wikilink to 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine? -- Nudve (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Provisional nature of the UN Partition Plan 1947

The article reads as if the plan had been finalized, when in fact it never had a final form. In Addition the plan was not a integral one. The establishment of one state or the international zone was not made dependent on the establishment of the other(s).

I had explained this earlier in a 10 July 2008 note above. It read:

On 25 November 1947 an amendment to the plan was passed that allowed the boundaries to be adjusted on the spot in Palestine by the Border Commission. The amendment was introduced by the delegation from the Netherlands.

The borders in the GA-181 plan [would otherwise have] cut-off 54 Arab villages from their farm land. The discussion before the vote indicated that inclusion of those villages in the Jewish state COULD have added as many as 108,000 more Arabs to the population [of the proposed Jewish State].'

Here is an extract from the UN debate:

Mr. SASSEH (Netherlands) stated that his delegation, while proposing two amendments to the draft resolution of Sub-Committee I, completely reserved its ultimate position as to the reports of both Sub-Committees. Submitting amendments to the report of Sub-Committee I did not mean that his delegation had no appreciation of the quality of the work done by Sub-Committee II.

In connection with the amendment of his delegation on boundaries, Mr. Sassen pointed out that, if a United Nations Commission went to Palestine, it would be bound by precise instructions concerning boundaries, except on a few minor points such as the boundaries between Jaffa and Tel-Aviv. That was unwise, all the more as the proposed frontier divided a great number of villages.

A state must be composed of a number of units, the smallest of which were villages. Village boundaries had therefore a basic significance for state frontiers. Special circumstances had to be taken into consideration and village boundaries were not immutable, but two things should be noted: firstly, special circumstances could be better taken into account on the spot than in New York, end secondly, the number of fifty-four village divisions seemed to indicate that Sub-Committee I did not apply as much as possible the principle that a state had to be composed of a number of local units.

The amendment purposely left unspecified which reasons, geographical or otherwise might make the division of villages as necessity. But in any case the wishes of the local population had to be taken into consideration.

In this respect the report of the Woodhead Commission seemed to indicate the advisability of local arrangements. These could be made in the of the Sub-Committee's conclusions, and of the advisability to avoid village divisions as much as possible.

Sir ZAFRULLAH KHAN (Pakistan) pointed out that fifty-four villages were involved, that is to say some 108,000 inhabitants, who would be counted the Arab side, although their lands were within the Jewish State. That was an undesirable solution. Either the lands should go with them to the Arab State, or they should go with the lands into the Jewish State so that they could elect a majority of the constituent assembly in the Jewish State.

Mr. JOHNSON,(United States) was in favour of the amendment of the delegation of the Netherlands. Its wording, while sufficiently broad to give the proper discretion to the boundary commission, provided it with guiding principles which should be followed.

In connection with the words "unless pressing.reasons make that necessary" Mr. Johnson said that these would require that good reasons should be shown.

The CHAIRMAN declared that, as there,was no objection, the two amendments of the delegation of Netherlands relating to boundaries as set forth in item 1 in document A/AC.l4/36 were adopted.

harlan (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant aspects of the population and land ownership data

The article attaches more significance to the details of the general background data that UNSCOP and the Ad Hoc Committees supplied to the General Assembly, than it deserves.

In many cases the article actually obscures the factual record by making statements such as 'No figures of land ownership by Arabs were available, due to difficulties that were due to the incomplete transition from the unreliable Ottoman Land Code to a modern land registration system.' That explanation is an evasion. The Jewish people had no title whatsoever to 94 per cent of the land under 'the modern land registration system'. The possibility that they might purchase or develop additional land had been permanently foreclosed, after 1939, by a racial land law. Ben Gurion himself testified that the Jews owned about six percent of the land and that the Arabs owned the remaining 94 per cent (on both a de facto and a de jure basis). He correctly argued that the legislation violated the spirit and the terms of the mandate, by prejudicing the rights of some of its citizens. The matter was a pressing national issue. It had nothing to do with doubts surrounding the provenance of private land titles:

Ben Gurion testimony on the Land Law:

Mr. FABREGAT (Uruguay) : Did you say, on page 16, that the Racial Land Law still exists? Do you then consider that this Racial Land Law implies violation of the Mandate and of the Charter of the United Nations?
Mr. BEN GURION: I think it is definitely against the Charter of the United Nations.
Mr. FABREGAT (Uruguay) : By its character of racial discrimination?
Mr. BEN GURION: Yes.

Ben Gurion on Population and Land Ownership:

Ben Gurion: I shall mention only a few. There is the disparity in numbers. There are some 600,000 Jews in Palestine and some 1,100,000 Arabs. There are no reliable figures in this respect. There is an even greater disparity than that. The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%.

By 1947, the Ottoman Land code was irrelevant. The Palestine Administration of the British government had long-since recognized the land and water rights of the Bedouins:

"It should be noted that the term Beersheba Bedouin has a meaning more definite than one would expect in the case of a nomad population. These tribes, wherever they are found in Palestine, will always describe themselves as Beersheba tribes. Their attachment to the area arises from their land rights there and their historic association with it." A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947, page 41.

Under the Anglo-French Accords of 1922, 1923 and 1926 the French Mandate of Syria had been granted the same rights of access to Lake Tiberias (aka Sea of Galilee and Lake Kinneret) as the Jewish and Arab Palestinians in the British Mandate territory. Under the 1923 Agreement:

"The Government of Palestine or persons authorized by the said government shall have the right to build a dam to raise the level of the Lakes Huleh and Tiberias above their normal level, on condition that they pay fair compensation to the owner and occupiers of the lands which will thus be flooded... ...Any existing rights over the use of waters of the Jordan by the inhabitants of Syria shall be maintained unimpaired.... ... The inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes. No. 565. — EXCHANGE OF NOTES * CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SYRIA AND PALESTINE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO EL HAMMÉ. PARIS MARCH 7, 1923, page 7.

The 1926 Accord stipulated that

"All the inhabitants, whether settled or semi-nomadic, of both territories who, at the date of the signature of this agreement enjoy grazing, watering or cultivation rights, or own land on the one or the other side of the frontier shall continue to exercise their rights as in the past.”

In the case of the population figures, the information in the article is based on out-dated estimates provided by the British Palestine Administration as of the A/364, 31 August 1947 report. Worse still, it perpetuates a potent cultural stereotype of the Bedouins as nomadic shepherds who weren't settled on the the land. In fact, the number of dunams that they had under cultivation compared very favorably with that of the Jewish community. A certain proportion of the Bedouins were shepherds who moved with their flocks in order to obtain better grazing. In practice, they lived much like the biblical depiction of the patriarchs who settled in ancient Palestine. According to the biblical narrative, the patriarchs sometimes used tents for their dwellings, sometimes moved about (from Egypt to Lebanon), worked as shepherds, and established burial sites. The fact that they may have been nomadic doesn't alter or undermine the grounds for a Jewish historical connection to Hebron, or the connection of the Bedouins to the Beersheba District.

The Bedouin settlement and population figures were revised by a report submitted by a representative of the government of the United Kingdom on 1 November 1947. That report was included in an Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947. The Palestine Administration conducted an investigation and used the Royal Air Force to perform an aerial survey of the Beersheba District. They reported that the Bedouins had the greater part of two million dunams under cereal grain production and counted 3,389 Bedouin houses together with 8,722 tents. On the basis of that investigation, the Palestine Administration estimated the Bedouin population at approximately 127,000.

The report stated: According to the UNSCOP Report, the distribution of the settled population in the proposed Jewish and Arab States and in the City of Jerusalem would be as follows:

	Jews	Arabs & Others	Total
The Jewish State	498,000	407,000	905,000
The Arab State	10,000	725,000	735,000
City of Jerusalem	100,000	105,000	205,000

These estimates must, however, be corrected in the light of the information furnished to the Sub-Committee by the representative of the United Kingdom regarding the Bedouin population. According to the statement, 22,000 Bedouins "may be taken as normally residing in the areas allocated to the Arab State under the UNSCOP's majority plan", and the balance of 105,000 as resident in the proposed Jewish State.

It will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.

The land ownership of the existing population wasn't necessarily relevant to 'The Question Of Palestine' that the Mandatory had placed before the Assembly, i.e. the future government of Palestine. The majority and the minority plans were unacceptable to everyone, the Jewish Agency included. The American delegate, Ambassador Johnson, accepted 'the principle of partition', but insisted on a mathematically balanced division of the land. Ben Gurion had, after all, testified about the needs of the Jewish people "who aren't there yet." The final language of the resolution contained provisions which had nothing whatever to do with the existing Jewish population: 'The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date...' The estimates which supposed that the Arabs might hold a (temporary) majority in the Jewish State didn't account for the hundreds of thousands of potential immigrants waiting in the DP camps. harlan (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Additions to the article

I added material and readily verifiable references to explain that:

• The LoN mandate did not allow for modifications (i.e. a partition needed to be incorporated in the terms of a new mandate).
• That the Zionist Leadership had issued public disclaimers that the 'National home' wasn't to be a Jewish State.
• That the Allies had rejected Jewish legal claims to Palestine when they were drafting the terms of the mandate.
• That partition became part of the agenda of the Zionist Organization, e.g. Biltmore Program, because the Permanent Mandates Commission could not alter the mandate so that it could be implemented according to the wishes of the Jewish Agency.
• That a charter member LoN non-Arab state had requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice
• That routine parliamentary procedures were used to avoid placing the mandate under the UN Trusteeship program.
• That all members were required under the Charter to recognize the 'fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion' when dealing with non-self governing peoples.
• That routine parliamentary procedures were used to avoid the obligation under article 26 of the Mandate to submit disputes to an International Court
• That the UN resolution was never implemented because the President of the USA came to the conclusion that the provisions requiring the use of force violated the UN charter and national policy.
• That the plan was not integral, the establishment of one state or the international zone was not dependent on the establishment of the others.
• That the land division was never finalized.
• That the Arab population figures were revised upward by the Mandatory Administration at the last minute.
• That the plan of partition did not relieve the proposed states of responsibilities under existing international agreements signed by the Mandatory
• That under international agreements the Syrians and Lebanese had the same water and fishing rights as the Palestinian Jews on the Sea of Galilee, Lake Huleh, and the Jordan River.
• That under the same agreements the semi-nomadic people of the region had unimpaired water rights in Palestine.
• That at the outset the Arabs would have held a majority in the new Jewish state.
• That the Jewish Agency and US State Department had discussed the acceptability of Abdullah annexing the proposed Arab state and a transfer of the Arab population of the Jewish state to Trans-Jordan.
• That the other Arab States intended to fight Abdullah.
• That even though the Jewish Agency had accepted a non-integral partition plan, the Jewish militias were still planning and conducting operations in the proposed Corpus Separatum, in places like Deir Yassin, which was set aside as a proposed UN trusteeship.
• That the CIA had concluded the only alternative was to support the establishment of only one state (the Jewish one) and that the proposed embargo should not prevent an international force of volunteers from assisting the Zionists.
• That the Arab Higher Committee appeared and testified before the UN. That they agreed to cooperate in plans to terminate the mandate and establish a independent and unified state.
• That the Jewish Agency refused to cooperate in developing plans modeled after the US Constitutional union which called for a representative and democratic federal government with a both a Jewish and an Arab state.
• That the Arab Higher Committee appeared and testified that the Jewish State was just a first step in a plan to annex the whole country and dominate the region.
• That Ben Gurion felt the partial Jewish State was just a first step. He and others in the Jewish Agency Executive intended to build up a first-class military and obtain agreements from the Arabs to settle in the rest of the country either through coercion or through the use of force.
• That the CIA had reported that the leaders of the new Jewish State had openly expressed aspirations for territory beyond the proposed borders or armistice lines.
• That the President could not agree to commit the US military to preserve the territorial integrity of another country or to become involved in an internal dispute over a League of Nations Mandate. Those were two of the explicit reservations to the Treaty of Versailles which had a Constitutional basis. The 1939 legal dispute between the mandatory power and the Zionist Congress over the fulfillment of the mandate centered around the lack of a legal consensus regarding the meaning of 'Jewish People' and 'Jewish National home'. Before the US could possibly assume the legally disputed mandate and impose a 'Jewish State' by force, those terms needed to be given some legally binding non-religious and non-racial definition. harlan (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)