Talk:Mandatory Palestine

Sept 11?

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

Disputes

Ed, you are playing with fire again. Your history here is mistaken in several important points, and most of all the article is not NPOV. The Mandate system was a means of dispensing with the colonial territories of defeated powers after World War I. Independence was offered by Britain twice: once to the Arabs, once to the Jews. It was part of a larger partition scheme of the Ottoman Empire, and included Syria and Lebanon (which went to France). Of course, there is also the colonial question: what right does a colonial power have to determine the future of land it occupies. I am curious as to the source for Jordan being called Palestine. In general, fix this up or revert, but as the article is now, it is inaccurate and cannot stay like that. Danny

Thanks for pointing out the historical inaccuracies and for the NPOV warning. --Ed

Ed, a reasonable suggestion. Please spend some time researching the issues here before cutting and pasting bits and pieces of encyclopedia articles. It is making a joke out of a topic that is of life-and-death importance for both Palestinians and Israelis. Danny

I have moved into this article some history from another article, because I think it serves readers better here. This article is linked by 8 or 9 other articles. I never would have found it if I hadn't been trying to create it.

I have removed my speculation about Palestinian homeland and Jordan, as on reflection it seems to be entirely my own POV. Ed Poor

Merged?

The page is currently being Merged (most of the material coming from over Palestine), I expect to finish it within 12-24 hours. --Uri

Moved above note. --Ed Poor 14:14 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

The duplication here with 1947 UN Partition Plan displeases me. Martin

Palestine vs Transjordan

I rewrote the part about Palestine versus Transjordan to make it more accurate and (I hope) less POV. Many other parts of the article need corrective surgery and I'll get to that eventually. -- zero UTC 16:00 July 26 2003.

Holocaust section

Sorry to whoever was editing the "Holocaust" section at the same time as I was rewriting it. I think my version is more detailed and more accurate. -- zero UTC 10:54 Aug 4 2003.

felaheen

The Palestinians had prior to World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. When Jews, who grew up with European laws, purchased land they did not always realise that the villagers on that land owned the trees. - I would like to see a reference for this because I have read many history books on this subject and never heard about this issue of ownership of trees. In fact land sales were regulated by the British authorities who followed the Ottoman laws except in some cases where they ammended them to give the authorities more power. This article needs a section describing the land tenure issue in more detail, since it was one of the key causes of conflict during the mandate. I put it on my (long) list of things to do. -- zero UTC 13:55 7 Aug 2003.

British and Germans

Zero0000 added "The British authorities were also paranoid about the possibility of German agents entering Palestine, though there is apparently not a single known example."

I am not disputing this addition at all, but I am flabbergasted. I had no idea that the British had any such concerns. Also, their thinking seems illogical. Palestine wasn't that hard for an individual or three to get into; putting spies in with Jewish immigrants seems so unncessary. Since the British stopped legal Jewish immigration...wouldn't the presumed German spies simply buy a train and boat ticket on their own, and travel into the country individually? I can't imagine how the British thought that this would stop the presumed (and non-existent) German infilitration. That's crazy. As Charlton Heston said in Planet of the Apes "Its a madhouse, a madhouse!" RK 13:36, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is important enough to put in the article but I thought it was interesting. There was some senior official in London who wrote memo after memo on it. One reason for the paranoia was that most of the refugee boats up until Germany reversed its emigration policy (1940? 1941?) were organised with German cooperation. By "not a single example" I meant that no German spy is known to have come to Palestine in a refugee boat. However, they couldn't come directly either (there was a war on and nobody from an Axis country was admitted readily). Probably over the border from Vichy Syria would have been the best shot. I bet there were actually many such spies in Palestine as Germany was planning to invade the place. --zero 15:04, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mandate document and Britain's actions

I have just read the League of Nations document creating the Mandate for the first time. I did not know that the Preamble and Article 2 (Article 1 confers powers upon the Mandatory Power, Great Britain) well...the Preamble says (in part): well better to read it yourself and Article 2 says: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." Which reads that Britain is required to create a Jewish nation home with civil and religious rights for all inhabitants. Sounds like create a democracy, as one is understood in the West. Goodness! The Brits succeeded in fulfilling the Mandate in spite of themselves! What we have now is rather wishy-washy on the central purpose of the Mandate. Should the stated purpose of the Mandate be stated explicitly on the page British Mandate of Palestine? OneVoice 23:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Self-determination doesn't imply democracy (at least, as known in the US). Monarchy and other forms of government also qualify (as happened under the Transjordan mandate). Remember the deliberate ambiguity and Britain disclaiming an intent to have an independent Jewish state. Britain didn't succeed in fulfilling the mandate - we don't today have a single country of Palestine with Jews and Arabs living together with safeguarded civil and religous rights. Jamesday 14:16, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jamesday, you are right that "we don't today have a single country of Palestine with Jews and Arabs living together with safeguarded civil and religous rights." But such might be rather easy to obtain. Should the Palestinians call for the annexnation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to Israel and Israeli citizenship for all Arabs living within these new boundaries of Israel, we would have that situation but for the name of the country. Given the number of Arabs and the democratic nature of Israel's government "safeguarded civil and religous rights" would follow within a generation, if not less. At times, one wonders why the Arabs do not pursue such a policy as the easiest method of obtaining their goals. OneVoice 11:29, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That single state would have an Arab majority, so it's probably not a solution which can happen, because Israel wouldn't accept it in the near future. Israel already has a massive problem in its future, for even with no changes it appears that it will have an Arab majority in a few decades. One of the more troubling long term questions is whether Israel will use an apartheid system to avoid that Arab voting majority or not. Ultimately, unless there's a pogrom or forced exodus of more Arabs from Israel, it will have an Arab majority, so something needs to be done and the best something is a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian Arab neighbor and time for tensions to fall. Seems very unlikely that Likud will achieve that result, though Labor might. Jamesday 04:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

JamesDay, I dont feel that its my place to advocate one solution or path over another. I am not an actor on the stage, my opinion counts for nothing in framing the course of events in this conflict. I am not a member or representative of any government involved. Rather, I am trying to make available on Wikipedia the full range of paths, peace processes, proposals, etc., that have been suggested by those that do influence the course of events, so that people reading Wikipedia can form their own opinions with as little outside or wikipedia editorial comment as possible.

You are correct that given current demographics it appears that the Arabs either would have a majority in that "one state" or soon form a majority. I say appears, because the future has a way of surprising people and confounding the experts. Who would have forseen the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union or the outcome of either the 1948 or 1967 war. Post-facto many folks write about the "inevitability" of events.

Statements of apartheid, seem to prejudge a response to a situation that has not occurred. That's a judgement twice removed (the future response to a future event). I shudder to even think of making such statements.

Regarding which political party can acheive a solution, some suggest that only Labor could do so. Nixon went to China, Begin went to Camp David, Sharon removed communities from the Sinai, Rabin was know as "Mr Security". (I use communities in light of the fact that I live a "community/city/settlement" in a country that has displaced its native population, waged numerous wars that have had the effect of expanding the territorial bounds of the country, and studiously choses not to dwell on the fact. Not that there is much to do about it at this point in time.) It may well be more likely that Likud can take such a step than Labor due to its record and reluctance.

Regarding a "pogrom" (perhaps massacre or ethnic cleansing would be more appropriate) or forced exodus, we are in the realm of disputed history that will be used to cite a precedent of behavior. Before discussing that, the history dispute would need to be resolved. I doubt that will happen in those years that are left before me.

A peaceful, prosperous Palestinian Arab state is something that many would very much desire to see arise. This requires the cooperation of the populace. Groups within a society dedicated to a goal and willing to use force in the attempt to acheive that goal has a very good chance of preventing a state from obtaining those characteristics. This is once reason that some argue that the Palestinians must confront elements within their own society before a state should be established. OneVoice 15:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a complex problem. I hope for the best but with a great deal of caution in my expectations. Jamesday 11:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To OneVoice:

A "peaceful, prosperous Palestinian Arab state" sounds a lot like the Kingdom of Jordan: it's peaceful, it's prosperous, it's in Palestine and it's chock full of Arabs. What more do you want? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed: I suppose they want one on the other side of the river? -Penta 23:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about one that they don't have to emigrate to be part of? One that Palestinians (as opposed to Bedouin, as in Jordan) rule would no doubt also be nice. - 15:58, 22 March 2004.

What they want

Unfortunately, discussions among Wikipedians about how to describe the various facts, views and aspirations of the major groups -- is scattered all over this website (and is often interrupted by mean-spirited bickering).

When I first got involved in Wikipedia, I managed to "bring peace to the Middle East" (as I light-heartedly put it), but some people including me felt it was at the expense of a multiplicity of views. So I laid off for a year.

I don't have the time now that I did then, but I hope I have a clearer understanding of how to write unbiased articles.

Anyway, one very interesting 'elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about' is the idea that:

• Palestine includes Jordan (or at least, it used to)
• "a Palestinian state" for Arabs, Muslims and non-Jews generally might therefore already exist: it's called "Jordan"
• arguments that (a) "Palestinians" ought to have a homeland, but (b) they don't have one, so (c) the world ought to help them got one; might all be based on the tacit assumption that Jordan is not a Palestinian state.

Now I might be a partisan about this (check me if I'm veering into pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli, or pro-Zionist bias!!) -- but all the history I've ever looked at says that:

1. Palestine got into British hands (somehow or other)
2. The majority of this land, pretty much everything east of the Jordan River, turned into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or "trans-Jordan" and is today's Jordan -- you know, the country that signed a treaty with Israel a couple of years ago.
3. This left the "swathe of territory in the Middle East, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire, which the League of Nations entrusted to the United Kingdom to administer" in two parts: (1) Jordan, on the east of the river; plus (2) all the rest, on the west of the river
4. At this point, some people started using the word "Palestine" to refer to the western portion of the entire region formerly called "Palestine"
5. Many refugees found themselves statelesss, and various sides blamed various parties for this (it was the fault of the Israelis for "kicking them out of their homes"; it was the fault of Arabs for "promising them great things if they would leave their homes", etc.)

So the disposition of the British Mandate of Palestine has hinged ever after, on views of:

• who are "the Palestinians"?
• does this group (however defined) merit a sovereign homeland?
• should Jewish people also have a homeland?
• how much of the original Mandate lands will be sufficient to provide each of these groups with a homeland?

Now it seems to me (and thus I'm veering into partisanship for a moment, if I haven't been there the whole time already!) -- that Jordan was for at least some period of time intended to be the place where Mandate Arabs were to settle, and that if Jordan and the surrounding Islamic states had agreed to welcome refugees as citizens then everything would be fine. (Yep, that's a POV all right! ;-)

Am I the only one who's every thought of this? If so, it's "original research" and probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Not until I write a book about it and get it published. (Reminder to self: try Regnery).

All right, I'm out of time. But I hope I have provided food for thought. --Uncle Ed 13:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one to think of that. It's a fairly popular opinion among Israelis. I first heard it more than 20 years ago. Concerning the word Palestine, I think it has generally referred mainly to the west side of the Jordan, but I'm not sure about that. (Certainly the Philistines were on the west.) EricK 19:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The Brits succeeded in fulfilling the Mandate in spite of themselves!"

It should be pointed out that:

1. Britain had conquered this part of the Middle East in 1917, before the League of Nations came into being. We had administered it for many years before the League of Nations gave us a "Mandate" to do what we were already doing. There was no need for us to agree with the mandate, we could have just added Palestine to our colonial possessions as was the custom of the time.

2. Britain originated the Balfour Declaration. We had the right to amend it to suit the changing circumstances of the time. We had responsibility for the existing population of Palestine, mainly Arab, that is why Lord Balfour was careful with the wording "being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The agreement was for a "National Home" not a "Jewish State".

3. The trouble came with the massive immigration of European Jews and their policy of evicting the existing Arab farmers and putting Jews in their place. They had no regard for the rights of the people they were evicting and had a "Jews only" employment policy. This policy was clearly against the spirit and letter of the Balfour Declaration and would be illegal under most modern legislation.

4. The Arabs rebelled and the British put the rising down. They tried to stem the Jewish immigration which was the root cause of the trouble and were rewarded by Jewish terrorism. They now had both sides against them and this continued throughout WW2 where the Jews saw nothing wrong with conducting a terrorist campaign against the British who were fighting the Nazis, the very people who were trying to exterminate the Jews in Europe. You would have thought they would have supported us in this fight instead of stabbing us in the back. The assassination in Cairo on 6 November 1944 of Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State, by Jewish terrorists was just one example of their duplicity. Avraham Stern, the leader of the Jewish Lehi terrorist gang had actually approached Hitler to advocate an alliance with Nazi Germany against Britain.

5. In retrospect, the Balfour Declaration was a mistake. We had no right to take away another peoples land and give it to foreigners. We supported Zionism out of sympathy for the Jews and this humane policy backfired on us and resulted in this region of the Middle East being the prime cause of terrorism in the modern world. If Balfour had any idea of the trouble his "Declaration" would cause he wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole.

JP 29 Dec 2004

The San Remo conference did not fix the borders of Palestine. Here it is if you want to read it. - Mustafaa 22:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Map of the British Mandate with the Jewish population info.

The new map of the British Mandate in the introduction is more appropriate for that section since it doesn't carry any information beyond the geography of the region. However I disagree that the British Mandate map with the Jewish settlements is in any way POV: it is a factual representation of the land owned by the Jews at the time. I've moved it to a more appropropriate section of the page that talks about the tensions between Arabs and Jews over the ownership of the land and the British resolutions targeted to ease the tensions. St33lbird 14:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From looking at the map, we see that Jews are settled in several scattered areas, mainly along the coast and the Jezereel Valley. What about Arab settlement? Were there any Arabs in these areas? Was all the rest settled by Arabs? Were the Jews the dominant group in those areas labeled "Jewish settlement"? Were there Arabs in Palestine at all? The map does not tell us. It seems that the purpose of the map is to illustrate that the Jewish settlement in Palestine was concentrated in a small area. While this may be perfectly true (and so was Arab settlement, as in any country that is mostly desert), this is well demonstrated by the numbers given in this article and in 1947 UN Partition Plan. The map seems unnecessarily stressing this point in a misleading way. And clearly, describing this map as "Population distribution in 1947" is misleading.--Doron 22:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. As well, the other map of the Mandate appears to directly contradict the article itself, since it shows only the cis-Jordanian portion of the mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, you know very well that after 1922 "Palestine" meant the cis-Jordanian portion for all purposes. The wording of the UN partition plan didn't even bother to make the distinguishment, even though it is an important international legal document. The borders of what one could call "Palestine" have changed drastically back and forth since antiquity, and I don't see why insisting on a particular entity that arguably existed for only a brief period. You'll notice that almost the whole article deals with the territory shown in the map, while Transjordan is hardly mentioned at all, so the map I added reflects the contents of the article as well as the political reality of the article's subject. --Doron 23:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article explicitly states that the Mandate included (what is now) Jordan. And speaking of "important international legal document" that "didn't even bother to make the distinguishment", the Mandate document itself didn't have a special name for the trans-Jordanian portion of the mandate, but rather simply said that the British could withhold the provisions of the Mandate in that area (to which it does not give a specific name). Clearly at the time of the Mandate, Palestine included both, but by dint of 25 years of separate administration, by the time of the Partition Plan, they were considered different territories. Since this article is about the Mandate, not the Partition Plan, it should reflect the Mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The territories were treated separately since 1922, not just in 1947. You'll notice, for instance, that all report of the mandatory to the League of Nations since 1924 refer to "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" (see [1] under UNISPAL). The article itself states that Britain administered the western part as "Palestine". So it would be perfectly correct in this context to include that map as a map of "Palestine" (being a part of "Palestine and Trans-Jordan"). I agree that it should be made clear that the map reflects only part of the original mandate territory, and perhaps a map of the whole territory of "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" may also be useful. And more importantly - the article says nothing about Transjordan (except for how it was established) - if the article is also about Transjordan, there should be information about it.--Doron 22:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can clarify that it's only part, and find a map of the whole mandate, then I would have no objection. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wrong borders?

"a part of the Golan Heights" is wrong. All of the Heights belonged to (French) Syria.

      Arno

No. The original borders included part of the Golan Heights. In 1923 the borders were adjusted. Read the article.--Doron 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

unsourced, wrong and biased material

There was a large amount of political opinion and unsourced information on this page. Population estimates, unsourced and politically biased have been removed. The aim of those numbers was to claim that in spite of census data showing that Palestinians were a large majority that somehow that majority is mostly nomadic or refugee from the Hejaz. None of that is suppported by reputable voices on the subject.

The other thing removed was the vicious assertation that Palestinians didn't object to the Balfour declaration early on and that when they did, it was an anti-semetic reaction controlled by arab leaders. There are an abundance of counter-examples to this. Those picked this time were taken from _Paris 1919_ by Margaret MacMillian but other sources exist in abundance.

A paragraph making assumptions about British motives was also removed because it was nothing more than political opinion.

I'm also going to remove claims that attempt to claim that the 1936 uprising involved Italy. Its NPOV and further an attempt to de-legitimize what is recognized generally as a broad-based uprising that started in the Palestine Mandate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs)

According to WP:V, the material should be verifiable, but I don't think this justifies the wholesale removal of material. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale changes were required because there are major problems with the current page. I'm certainly willing to consider less drastic changes if my concerns already outlined are addressed. My proposed edits can be reviewed even though they have been removed. But I dont know (for example) how to preserve the paragraph that says Palestinians didn't object to the mandate early on and that when objections were raised by Arabs they were based in anti-semitism. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I should go about preserving that paragraph which is IMO wrong and politically inflamitory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs)

Its been about a week and there has been only the one comment. Are there any final objections to insertion of the proposed changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs)

• Take it easy Mr. Anonymous. These kind of articles have been "evolving" for years and your haste is suspicious. IZAK 09:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• I waited a week before I put out the message. I put the message out to generate some kind of discussion because there wasn't really any (it accomplished its purpose). If you are reviewing the changes, it would help me to know what kind of timeframe is needed. Please lets confine the discussion to facts and sources. - anonymous

Why not propose a change here first, I don't even know what you're suggesting changing. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I created this section and added the initial text to do that. I also assumed that since you personally removed the material and asked for a discussion on it, that you would have been familiar with it. If its the right procedure, I'll put exact word-for-word changes into the discussion rather than the generalizations of the problem sections I provided. I'm also willing to accept alternative changes that fix the problems I originally outlined. (demographics, editorializing about British motives, asserting that there were no objections by palestinians early in the mandate plus accusation that their objections such as they were are related to european anti-semitism, Italy's role in the 1936 uprising).- anonymous

Listing the specific changes you'd like to make here would be really helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Restructure Opening

It does not seem appropriate to open the body of the article with conspiracy theories about Zionism. I suggest moving the lengthy quotations concerning British political machinations to a subordinate section, entitled something like "Factors Leading to the Mandate", which might also incorporate the discussion of contradictory promises offered to Arab and Jewish groups. — JEREMY 06:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the material in question:

British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire's South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century, concurrent with the Great Game and the planning for the Suez Canal. As early as 1840, Viscount Palmerston (later to become Prime Minister) wrote to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire:

"There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine. It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth that they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan's dominions, and the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Egypt or its neighbours. I wish to instruct your Excellency strongly to recommend to the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine."

Later, in 1907, a commission convened by Prime Minister Campbell-Bannerman issued a report declaring:

"There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects."

It does appear to be conspiracy material; I can't find any reasonable sources for these claims, and the sites that suggest they are factual and/or relevant are, to put it politely, less than scholarly. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see now, it was inserted August 20-22 by a revert puppet: 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... not a good idea to let a propagandist control the content of Wikipedia, I'd say. I find a reference to the Palmerston quote here; I'd seen a complete quote at another pro-Israeli site before. Don't think there's any doubt, among honest people knowledgeable of the situation, of its authenticity. Couldn't find, just now, the Campbell-Bannerman quote online. Jay, why don't you provide the links to the "less than scholarly" source where you found it? Marsden 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the full Palmerston text from a Canadian Christian Zionist site: [2] Marsden 18:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This transcript of a Haaretz article (will see about verifying that) mentions the Campbell-Bannerman report, albeit as part of "the Palestinian narrative." Marsden 18:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Haaretz article seems legit. Marsden 18:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I restored the Palmerston quote with a link. Could not find a source online that I liked for the Campbell-Bannerman quote, and the sources I did find disagreed over whether it was from 1902 or from the 1907 conference. Might have to look to hardcopy somewhere. Marsden 19:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't find a source online that "you liked" for the Campbell-Bannerman quote was because they are all, as I said above, less than scholarly. For example, [3] [4] [5], and dozens of blogs, message board postings, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's a real quote, then the question is, is it relevant, or is it cherrypicking? Was a statement sent to the British ambassador in Constantinople in 1840 really relevant to the British Mandate in 1917? It seems to be part of a "narrative" that is not really espoused by any mainstream historians, are there any that suggest this? Or is it an "extreme minority view"? (p.s. dig regarding "propagandists" out of line and incorrect) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is relevant. See [6]. "Propagandist" no more out of line, and much more correct, than "revert puppet." Marsden 00:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The anonymous IP was you. Well, outside of this article fully half of the times you used this IP edit was for reverts, so "revert puppet" was not unwarranted for an anonymous IP that spent half its time reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... how much of your time is spent reverting, Jay? Marsden 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

POV intro to quote

The introduction to the quotation inserted by anon IP/Marsden currently states "British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire's South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century, concurrent with the Great Game and the planning for the Suez Canal." This is highly POV, implying that the British interest in Zionism had something in common with "the Great Game" and its plans for the Suez Canal, and creating a linkage between them. Is there any evidence that British interest in Zionism had anything to do with these things, as opposed to various other causes (e.g. Christian belief)? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Map of Land Ownership

The External link http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story571.html Map of Land Ownership 1947] states that As of 1947, the Palestinians owned 93% of the total lands. Everyone familiar with the subject of land tenure in the region knows this is false. The referenced source is a mere anti-Israel propaganda outlet. Removing link from article. Doright 23:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"State-owned"

Before we get into revert wars, let's be clear what is meant by "state-owned." From what I seem to recall, the British took over vast land areas in the region that belonged to the Ottoman Empire. I am not sure if they were "crown" (e.g., owned by the Osmanli sultan, or were public lands belonging to the government. In any event, they were surrendered to the mandate following WWI and therefore went into limbo after the British abandoned the mandate. UNSCOP probably assumed that public lands would fall to the regime that governed various sections of the partition; in any event, the UNSCOP recommendations never approached anything legal. --Leifern 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be better just to say how much land was unowned or "commons." It is clearly missleadig to say that "much of the land was Jewish-owned or state owned," particularly as a riposte to "most Palestinians opposed division." Marsden 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When the state owns land, it owns land - it's not ownerless. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A mandatory government is not a state, and "owns" essentially nothing in its mandate. You're employing missleading weasel-speak. Marsden 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The mandate owns the land in lieu of the state, and hands it over to the state when one is formed; I rather think it would be misleading to imply that 70% of the land was owned by Arabs. Also, please abide by Wikipedia's civility policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence, "The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and by most of the Arab population, although much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews, had a Jewish majority, or was under state control," is phrased in a way to suggest that "the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs" and "most of the Arab population" were objecting to a partition that was strongly indicated by demographics and land ownership, which is biased and missleading. In fact, the partition was designed in a way that was profoundly prejudicially favorable to the proposed Jewish state, giving as much territory as it could to that state while maintaining a strong Jewish majority (55%). There is no legitimate need to refer to land under "state" control (really what this means is that no individual owned it; much of it was in fact tribally shared commons) in indicating facts that lean toward supporting Jewish control of land: obviously, land under state control doesn't on its own suggest any preferential treatment. The phrasing of the sentence has the effect of making the phrase "much of the land" less false by absurdly including "state" controlled land with Jewish-owned land, but it makes no sense to include; it is something like me claiming that I and the county government together control most of the land in my neighborhood -- true, but phrased in a way that has no purpose but to suggest something that has no bearing in fact: that I control a lot of the land in my neighborhood. Marsden 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Opponents of the partition typically make the exact same absurd claim in reverse; that Jews owned 6%, and therefore the Arabs owned 94%. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant. I think I will track down a statement about common ownership, though, which I'm sure I've seen. In any case, the disposition of land either unowned, government controlled, or state owned should not be presented in a way that suggests that it naturally inures to the benefit of one side or the other. It is wrong to suggest, as the 94% figure does, that anything that was not Jewish-owned was necessarily Palestinian-owned; but it is also wrong to suggest, as the sentence in question does, that because "much" (did it say "most" before?) of the land was either Jewish or state-owned, Palestinians were being unreasonable in rejecting the partition. Marsden 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)