Talk:Mandatory Palestine

Land ownership of the British Mandate of Palestine

According to the first paragraph of the abovementioned section in the article, it appears that Arabs owned 94% of the land of the Mandate, which is inconceivable, as well as inconsistent with the table that follows, stating a much lower percentage in almost all districts, most notably the huge Beersheba District which consisted of almost half of the Mandate territory. I'm quite sure the Survey of Palestine does not state the figures quoted in the first paragraph, can someone say where exactly (page number) was this said?--Doron 22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I put that section up. Unfortunately I am away fom home right now. It would be helpful if you could wait until then. Alternatively, you can put a "fact" tag and some one else will respond. The figures are correct because if you look at the other table (Land ownership by type) you will find the figure there. the contradiction is due to what is considered Arab land.Bless sins 15:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is impossible that Arabs owned (privately or collectively) 94% of the lands, because the Beersheba District was mostly state lands. I would very much like to see the source of that statement and the table, they both sound incorrect. I'll have a look myself next time I have a chance to go to the library, in the meantime I'll put the tag. Cheers.--Doron 17:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't help suspecting that someone made this up having seen the well-known figure that 6-7% of the land towards the end of the Mandate was in Jewish ownership, and assumed that the rest was in Arab ownership. Palmiro | Talk 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess someone subtracted (total area)-(Jewish owned) and called it Arab owned. Wrong. Whatever the explanation, the Survey of Palestine does not contain this 94% claim. It does not state a specific figure for total Arab ownership at all. You know, I could swear that in the past month or so I typed a summary of what the Survey says into Wikipedia somewhere, but I can't find it. Anyone? --Zero^talk 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of this issue coming up in the past. If memory serves me, the whole issue of land ownership was very complicated in Palestine, as during the Mandate period there was a transition from old Ottoman land laws to modern land laws. I think only a third of the lands of Palestine had been surveyed by the time the Mandate was terminated, so the distinction between private/collective/state lands was not clear and may be a matter of interpretation of the laws. I know that Israel took advantage of this situation in the West Bank (where land laws haven't been changed) during the 1980s to declare land as state-owned and allocate it for settlements. Does this make any sense to anyone?--Doron 16:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, the recent edits have clarified the matter somewhat. In addition to the original reserch on the percentage of Arab-owned land, I have removed the percentages on cultivable and total land owned by Jews, giving the numerical values for the land area should suffice. There is still a reference to Uri Avneri; I'm uncertain which work is meant here, but anyway I doubt he can be considered a reliable source on the land ownership issue (even though his figure does make some sense). Beit Or 11:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not Uri Avneri but a different Avneri (Aryeh?), who wrote a book called something like "The Claim of Dispossession". You can tell from the title how balanced it is. Stein's book is much more like a serious history book, so thanks for adding material from there. Can you find anything to replace Avneri? Also, we need to add something about Arab ownership. I can (when I have time) summarise what the Survey of Palestine has, but maybe Stein has done that? --Zero^talk 12:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that's The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948 by Arieh Avneri. Beit Or 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the Survey and was astonished to find that the "Land Ownership by Type" table is indeed as it appears there (almost), with the two categories of "Jewish ownership" and "Arab and other non-Jewish ownership". However, I find this table very misleading, as from the analysis in the Survey it appears that a large proportion of the "non-Jewish" land is state land, while this phrasing associates the state land with Arab ownership. The Survey gives no specific figure of Arab land ownership at all, so I think there's a problem with this presentation.

The reason for this is that under the Ottoman Land Code, land registration was unreliable, dysfunctional, and incompatible with western land ownership systems. The Mandate government, through the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance, attempted to settle the titles of the lands of Palestine, but by 1947 had only managed to settle 5,243,042 dunums (out of 26,184,702), so it was impossible to give any figure of Arab land ownership. The Survey estimates that more than 10,000 km² of the 12,577 km² of the Beersheba District is state-owned waste land, as well as some 3,000 km² in the wilderness east of Nablus, Jerusalem and Hebron. It estimates that some 2,000 km² in the Beersheba District may be claimed by individuals or communities. Taxation records suggest that some 7,000 km² in the rest of Palestine are cultivated. Of the 5,000 km² or so whose title had been settled, about 1,000 km² where public land.

All this is very confusing and not very accurate, but I think it's fair to say that at least half of the lands of Palestine were state lands. Jewish land ownership is given (1,624,000 as of 31.12.46, according to the "Supplement to Survey of Palestine, notes compiled for the information of the UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE", June, 1947, p. 30), and the analysis may suggest that most of the remainder (no more than 10,000 km²) was owned or tenured by Arabs, but this information is my own conclusion and is not given anywhere in the text. Nevertheless, I think it's enough to establish that assigning 24,000 km² to "Arab and other non-Jewish ownership" (or the much worse, and incorrect, "Arab ownership" that is in the article currently) is misleading and biasing.--Doron 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need so many tables in this particular article: let's just summarize the issue and move on. If there is a lot of material, we can split a separate article on land ownership and fill it with as many tables as necessary. Beit Or 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, I might start such an article myself if I find the time. However, there's still that table that you changed -- although it is now factually correct, it is still somewhat misleading and biased. I think we're better off without it than with it, unless someone can come up with reliable estimates of Arab ownership alone. Would anyone object to removing this table?--Doron 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Arab and other non-Jewish" means simply "non-Jewish"; giving figures for Jewish vs. non-Jewish ownership is hardly meaningful. For the time being, I suggest sticking to the figures for the Jewish ownership only, where numbers are more or less reliable. Beit Or 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you would like to remove the table. It's sourced to a reliable soure and is relevent. It show how much was owned by Jews, how much wasn't and how much was there in total. Why is the table misleading (unless we are misrepresenting the Survey of Palestine)? If you have other figures feel free to include them. Bless sins 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about the table "land ownership by type" then it is certainly unacceptable in its present form. However I hope we can rescue it rather than just deleting it. The question of Arab land ownership is quite complicated as Doron pointed out above. Even the definition is not a triviality since Ottoman concepts of ownership did not neatly fit into the categories of the Torrens system of land registration (copied from Australia) that the British adopted. For example there was a concept of owning an amount of land rather than an actual plot of land. There was also a lot of land possessed under a type of perpetual lease rather than outright ownership. Of course some people want to call that "Arab owned" and some people want to call it "state land", and both are inaccurate. --Zero^talk 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we already have the British estimates of land ownership in the previous table, why don't we turn this one into land usage by type without being concerned with ownership? If I remember correctly, the Survey does have data of this sort. --Zero^talk 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in presenting the additional info. Also, I understand that land ownership is a complex issue. Perhaps, you should include in thearticle how Arab ownership was judged.Bless sins 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As proposed before, what we really should do is start an article about land ownership in Palestine which would discuss this complexity and move this table there, where it would be in context. I think this table is too specific for a general article about the Mandate anyway.--Doron 06:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The new article sounds quite interesting. I would thoroughly enjoy reading it. As to the table in this article, it seems clear it should be deleted or amended. Per a previous entry, the table is not in accord with the analysis in the survey. Further, describing public land under the grouping of lands under "Arab and other non-Jewish ownership" is as misleading as a description that categorizes "Arab Ownership" as 6% or some such figure and "Jewish and other non-Arab ownership" as 94%. Clearly the table is problematic. Aba Shmuel (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem here. Yes, the "Survey of Palestine" data does refer to "Arab and others" but that is because the useful land is predominantly Arab, which is the interpretation that would be applicable if the same formulation was used in any other context. The other publication by the Mandatory government towards the end of the Mandatory period which dealt with land ownership was Village Statistics 1945, from which the table dealing with ownership by sub-ditrict was compiled. That categorises the data into three - Arab-owned, Jewish-owned, and Public and other. And the attached reference is to this map held at the UN, which displays the data in the table. I find it curious that all those who have expressed such concern apparently missed the table and presumably the map, which clarified the issue.

As regards the Settlement of Title process, that has little bearing on this debate. It's purpose was to identify a single owner for each parcel of land. It's effect was to break up collectively held land and grant title to the individual tenants in the collective - usually villages. Since, as far as I know, there was no mixed ownership of village land, it would make no difference to the overall percentages. Simply file all the particular land as Arab-owned or Jewish-owned.

One final point, there is another page which deals with Land ownership at the end of the Mandate period. The interesting point is that it provides confirmation of the map from Israeli sources. Specifically the Jewish National Fund and the Custodian of Absentee property. Indeed, the very fact that Israel regarded it as the highest priority to pass legislation expropriating the ethnic-cleansed Palestinians' property tells the story. Israel was by no means full. If the usable land was actually state -owned, they would have inherited it and there would have been no urgency to expropriate.Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Immigration section

I dispute much of the newly-added material:

• The 1945 Anglo-American Survey did estimate the total immigration (legal+illegal), I can get the figures next time I visit the library. The way the section is written, the reader is lead to think that no reliable figures exist, while this is in fact the revisionist point-of-view of the article that is quoted. Official figures should be given first, even if they are disputed by some, unless there is a very good reason why they are so unreliable as to be completely unnoteworthy.
• Even worse, the biased source is misquoted to create further bias -- the 11.8% figure refers to immigration into specific sub-districts (those deemed "Jewish" by the author), including internal migration, and not "Arab immigration into Palestine" as the Wikipedia article states.

Such manipulations are reminiscent of Joan Peters' discredited book. At first glance, the Middle East Forum, which published the sole source used for this section, appears to be a rather biased organization. It is clear that the motivation behind the article is to bolster the theory that claims that much of the Arab population of Palestine consisted of recent immigrants. Such a delicate issue, which has political implications to many people, must be treated with care, not by quoting just one biased source.--Doron 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doron, I don't have information about these events but it is clear when you read the new version you get the feeling no reliable numbers about immigration exist (due to the fact it was huge). I don't know if this is true or not but if this is not true, the new version is biaised. MEQ is not indeed a good secondary source for "palestinian immigration" but I think it can be considered a reliable tertiary source (nothing proves they misquote others even if they could forget to quote some people they consider not to go in their direction) and a reliable secondary source to point out a "pro-israeli" point of view (it is indeed the pov the defend). Alithien 07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Doron, don't be a dick. I hope you're not asserting the "manipulations" in question are mine, since that would grossly violate WP:AGF. I would point out that I have done a tremendous amount of work on this article, most of which has been the addition of sources and editing for neutrality and factual accuracy. The source in question was the first one that appeared reliable to me when googling Arab immigration to Mandate or to Palestine. Prior to my additions, all that was there was this:{{fact}}. Accordingly, if you want to add more sources, just do it. You're pushing at an open door by making it into a controversy. Simply editing the section with better sources would be a good place to start. Without the accusations, maybe? Kaisershatner 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's accusing you of manipulations or of not editing in good faith, the manipulations I referred to were done by the author of the source you've unfortunately quoted (with all due respect to your google research). The reason why I started this discussion rather than the usual counter-edit was because I assumed good faith, and assumed a discussion could improve this section. Given your response, I was obviously wrong.--Doron 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, maybe I'm a little touchy. If you have better sources, I am not standing in the way, and if I was un-necessarily harsh in my reply, please accept my apology. Kaisershatner 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I can see how you'd think I was referring to you by "manipulations", I should have been more accurate in my phrasing.

Now, I won't be able to access any of the sources before Sunday. Anyway, an important question is how to represent the debate on this subject. The theory that claims that "the Palestinians were recent immigrants, drawn by Zionist development" is very prevalent among Zionists (that is my impression), though it is widely viewed by historians as a myth (yet another impression). Gottheil's article demonstrates the implications of this issue -- in many Zionists' view, the veracity of the theory may undermine the Palestinian claim to Palestine. If I understand correctly, the "immigration theory" was bolstered by Joan Peters' largely discredited From Time Immemorial, which was harshly criticized by Yehoshua_Porath (among others) and defended by Daniel Pipes, who's incidentally the head of the Middle East Forum think tank that published Gottheil's article, a fact that somewhat confirms my suspicions about the resemblance between Peters' and Gottheil's methods.

Anyway, Gottheil's article does not actually bring any evidence of immigration to Palestine, it only argues that such immigration is plausible. The only actual numerical analysis he provides is about internal migration within Palestine, and here, again, based on population increase alone, without actual migration figures. We should find out to what extent these speculations are accepted, my impression was that they are considered a revisionist minority view, but I may be wrong.--Doron 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Doron gets a star for recognising "the resemblance between Peters' and Gottheil's methods". In fact Fred Gottheil was the source of the mandate-era "data" in Joan Peters' book, as she acknowledges there. Btw, he is an economist. Because this subject is one that lots of venom has been spread over, I think we should restrict ourselves to the true professionals in the demographic field. That even eliminates first-rate historians like Porath. Demographics is a much harder subject that most people realise, and historians simply don't have the training for it. It has more to do with statistical analysis than history. Examples of demographers who have written on immigration into Palestine are Roberto Bacchi (the first official statistician of Israel), P. J. Loftus (a statistician who worked for the mandate government), Mills (director of the 1931 census), and Justin McCarthy (author of The Population of Palestine). I don't have time at the moment to write more, but I will note that (despite what Peters, Gottheil and Co. want us to believe) there is no British report of the mandate period that suggests there was large illegal Arab immigration. In fact report after report consistently claimed the opposite. --Zero^talk 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some reasons we should not rely on Gottheil's paper [1].

• Gottheil quotes a paper of Schmelz about the Jerusalem and Hebron kazas in 1905 regarding Arab migration into those areas, but fails to mention that Schmelz gave actual statistics: of the Muslims 98.4% were born in Palestine, and of the Christians (many non-Arab since Jerusalem city is included) 96.4% were born in Palestine.

It is worth noting that far from simply omitting relevant percentages, Gottheil deliberately misleads his readers. In his supposed summary of Schmelz's work he states (with my emphasis):

Demographer U.O. Schmelz's analysis of the Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron kazas (Ottoman districts), by place of birth, showed that of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey.

Trouble is, as you hinted at, Schmelz stated that roughly 93% of Muslims and Christians were living in the locality where they were born, so the percentages Gottheil gives is based entrirely on the 7% who weren't living where they were born and most of them were born elsewhere in Palestine. I didn't know Gottheil's connection to Joan Peters' discredited fraud, but it was clear that he would only attempt such a transparent deception because he had no actual evidence to support his thesis. I was taught that if the data does not support one's theory, keep the data, dump the theory. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Gottheil says of the 1931 census "no estimate of its [Arab illegal immigration's] numbers was included in the census count", but in fact the 1931 census report has a whole section on illegal immigration for 1922-1931 that concludes with estimates 9000 for Jews and 4000 for Arabs (Vol I, pp61-65). Gottheil also failed to mention that the census report gives the percentages of people born outside Palestine: Muslims, 2%; Christians, 20%; Jews, 58% (Vol 1, p59). Gottheil might disagree with these estimates, but what excuse is there for pretending they don't exist?

The previous incarnation of Gottheil's paper (published in "The Palestinians", eds. Curtis, Neyer, Pollack and Waxman) was even worse. For example he cited the 1937 Peel Commission report without mentioning its conclusion: "There is no evidence available to show that this residue [of illegal Arab entrants who settle in Palestine] is so considerable as seriously to disturb the general economy of Palestine." (p292) He also cites the 1946 Survey of Palestine but fails to report its conclusion: "The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant." (p212) In the present version, Gottheil has wisely decided to ignore these major reports altogether, or did I miss them? --Zero^talk 10:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this, especially the person who did the immigration section is completely misleading, which others have rightfully pointed out. This is one of the most contentious subjects and you've chosen to present propoganda as fact. If you are going to push this view than you have to represent the other view too, that is only fair. Thank goodness for doron and zero. [unsigned]

Hussein-McMahon Correspondence after Sykes-Picot?!!!

After Sykes-Picot, the British made two conflicting promises regarding the territory it was expecting to acquire. [5] Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East in exchange for their support; and in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine. The British had, in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, previously promised the Hashemite family lordship over most land in the region in return for their support.

I think the above information is incorrect. As far as I know the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence was first and it was the following Sykes-picot and Balfour declaration which were violations of the Hussein-McMahon treaty between the British and the Arabs.

I don't understand why the violation of the Hussein McMahon treaty isn't made more clear in the article. In all the articles about the Israeli Palestine conflict the emphasis always is on the Balfour declaration while it is only a vague promise which didn't state how many Jews on what territory would get a "national home" (not even a state!). The Hussein McMahon treaty on the other hand is pretty clear in what was demanded for Arab support.

It is obvious that Hussein proposed support to the British against the ottomans in exchange of independence for an autonomous Arabia. Hussein asked in his letter for the whole Arab region of the Ottoman Empire and the British agreed but made some territorial exceptions to Hussein’s claims. It excluded "portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, because they cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation". This portion of Syria is current Lebanon because the inhabitants were Christians. Palestine/Israel lies to the south of Damascus and at the time had only a very small minority of non Muslim inhabitants. Not more than any other region in the ottoman territory.

If it was intended that Palestine should also be excluded why did the list of vertical cities end at Damascus and did it not also include for example Amman, Jerusalem, ma'an and aqaba or any other Jordanian/Palestinian city or reference point? If Hussein wanted at first the whole Arab portion of the Ottoman Empire then it goes without saying that the British would have been much more precise in the description of the excluded territories if Palestine was also intended to be excluded since everything what was not excluded would go to the Arabs. In any modern court the court would have favored the side of the Arabs who made the clearest claims. Palestine was inside the territories which were claimed by Hussein but was not explicitly nor in any other way mentioned by McMahon in his exclusions. Also what is odd is that the areas west of Damascus, homs etc were allocated to France so even if Palestine (which included Jordan at the time which clearly is east of Damascus) was also excluded, it would have been a French mandate and the balfour declaration made by the British would have still been invalid.

Any way you look at it the Sykes-picot and Balfour declaration and the consequences of it (the formation of Israel) are unlawful. The British never fulfilled their promises and violated the treaty by dividing Syria into British and French mandates and promising a homeland for Jews in Palestinian Arab territory. How is it that the European Jewish refugees who entered Palestine illegally in violation of the British/Palestinian immigration restrictions ended up with their own state thanks to the vague Balfour declaration while the native population (eastern Christians and Muslims) ended up stateless despite the Hussein-McMahon treaty?

In order to keep wikipedia accurate more info should be given about the Hussein-McMahon agreement and its violation because that is an important point in this conflict which up until now has been ignored and omitted by the pro-Israel editors here. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the McMahon-Hussein correspondence came before the Picot-Sykes agreement. The article needs to be worked on at that point. Zero^talk 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with map

This map is not correct. In the 1920 there was no such map. The division between "Palestine" and "trans-jordan" (as shown on that map) did not came about until 1923 after Abaddal a took by force the area known today as Jordan. This maybe a small point but it is important that wkipedia tell the history as it is Zeq 08:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As clearly written in the article, the mandate came into effect in September 1923, while the government under the Hashemite Emir was established in Transjordan in 1921.--Doron 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong... it was occupied by force by Abdullah and it had nothing to do with the designated mandate. Amoruso 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about?!--Doron 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

TransJordan was given to the Hashemites by Churchill in 'thanks' for their siding with the alies. They were landless as they were kicked out of Arabia for their treason! Giving away 78% of the Mandate was an illegal act. The new Hashemtite 'Kingdom' was also to be Jew free. 36,000 Jews were expelled and their property confiscated. ...[Fivish UK 21.1.2008]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.226.205 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The top of the page above the current map says 1920, but only shows the what became Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. But in 1920 Transjordan was simply part of the British Mandate of Palestine. And it also misses out on that Jews were settling in Jordan before Churchill gave the land east of the river to King Abdullah, in abrogation of the Balfour Declaration. There should be a map on this page similar as an svg., but reflects that at one time the mandate had British Palestine and Transjordan.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the nonsense in both anon's and Tallicfan20's claims (the 36,000 is pure invention, the mandate did not even exist in 1920, etc.), the map should show Transjordan. There was never such a legal entity as the "Mandate of Transjordan"; it was part of the Mandate of Palestine until Transjordan became independent in 1946. This is fact #1. Fact #2 is that "Transjordan" was already administered separately from "Palestine" by the time the mandate came into legal effect in 1923. We need a map that shows both parts but we should also show a boundary between them and we should label it 1923. Zero^talk 07:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Balfour had to say: "In our promises with regard to the frontiers of the new Arab States we do not seem to have been more fortunate than in our promises about their independence. In 1915 it was the Sherif of Mecca to whom the task of delimitation was to have been confided, nor were any restrictions placed upon his discretion in this matter" - Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia'[132187/2117/44A], E.L. Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, IV, 1919-1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), 340-348, ISBN:0115915540

The pre-mandate era delimitation of Palestine and Transjordan goes something like this: The British government insisted on fixing the borders according to biblical formulas. Those were set by the Jordan river crossing recorded in Yehoshua - Joshua 4:1-7; and the limits of "Dan to Beersheba" mentioned in Shoftim - Judges 20:1. Gideon Bigger relates that Lloyd George interrupted the Deauville negotiations with the French regarding the northern boundary to consult George Adam Smith's works about the geography of the Holy Land. see The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947, Gideon Biger, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0714656542, page 120

At the peace conference, Lloyd George and Clemenceau defined Palestine as the area occupied by the British after their withdrawal from Syria. Transjordan was left to the Arabs:

• 1. Steps will be taken immediately to prepare for the evacuation by the British Army of Syria and Cilicia including the Taurus tunnel.
• ...
• 4. In pursuance of this policy the garrisons in Syria west of the Sykes-Picot line and the garrisons in Cilicia will be replaced by a French force, and the garrisons at Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo will be replaced by an Arab force.
• ...
• 6. The territories occupied by British troops will then be Palestine, defined in accordance with its ancient boundaries of Dan to Beersheba.'text of the Aide-Me'moire

Transjordan was east of the Sykes-Picot line. It was allocated to the Arabs and was not mentioned in the proposed Mandate conferred during the San Remo Conference in April 1920. The British and French never had any garrisons in the country under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. The occupation of Palestine ended on 1 July 1920, when Samuel officially took over as High Commissioner. Faisal's rule over Transjordan came to an end shortly thereafter. On 30 September Curzon instructed Vansittart (Paris) to leave the eastern boundary of Palestine undefined. On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Mandate. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, but the union of Transjordan with Palestine wasn't officially approved until 22 July 1922. see "Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921", by Aaron S. Klieman, John Hopkins Press (and the National Foundation For Jewish Culture), 1970, ISBN-0801811252 harlan (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

how much total land in Mandate west of Jordan River was Arab vs. publicly owned or non-Arab

I notice in the chart where it talks land ownership, but it lumps Arab and "other non-Jews." How much land was owned by those "other non-Jews?" How much of the land owned by Arabs was owned by Palestinian Arabs, as opposed to other Arabs, and how much of that land was absentee owned land? I have heard most of it was in fact public land. Also, how much land was owned by Arabs who would remain in Israel and who left? Also, the Negev was state land under the British passed onto israelTallicfan20 (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The survey of Palestine was never completed. According to "A Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate, 1920-1948", by Dov Gavish there was no cadastral survey of the Negev and much of the rest of the country. SA Sitta, president of the Palestine Land Society, London, and compiler of the Atlas of Palestine 1948, said that "Contrary to general practice in which country surveys started with topographical maps to describe the earth surface, there was a great rush to produce cadastral maps. The aim was to undertake 'legal examination of the validity of all land title deeds in Palestine,' in Weizmann's words. Thus, the extent and identity of private land ownership would be determined. All else would be 'state or waste land,' open for Jewish settlement." harlan (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole topic is a minefield. The Turkish land tenure system does not map onto the Western one properly, and the details were only decided formally for a fraction of the country. The map of which areas had land tenure settled bears a remarkable resemblance to the Jewish part of the UN partition plan. In other words (and due to the different history) the statistics of Jewish land tenure were known much more accurately than the Arab tenure. Then there are definitions (a playground for spin doctors). Was land jointly owned by a village "state land"? What about land held on permanent lease? What about land for which someone had a legally recognised right of grazing use? Of course Arab and Israeli statistics use opposite answers to these questions so we can't expect their totals to be similar. To answer another question, I don't know of figures for foreign-owned land in the mandate period but I'll watch for them. My guess is that, in decreasing order of size, the main cases were land owned by foreign Jewish organizations and companies, land owned by Christian churches, the German templar holdings, and the rest. Zero^talk 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Introducing arguments in the lede

Mideastweb and Tessler both repeat the myth that Transjordan was part of the Mandate territory that was granted to Great Britain by the San Remo Conference, and that it was separated from the Palestine mandate in a series of steps. There is an entire subsection of the article that debunks that fable. The mandate required the establishment of self-governing institutions in both Palestine and Transjordan. The Arab Rights subsection of the article explains that the failure of Great Britain to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine had no basis in the powers of administration that were granted by the Mandate, or a difference in the terms of the mandate regarding Palestine and the other "A" Mandates.

For some reason, multiple sources are being cited to make it appear that Palestine was British Administered, but that Transjordan was not. Great Britain always retained control and administration of the armed forces and foreign affairs of Transjordan.

In 1923 the government of Great Britain recognized an "independent government" in Transjordan. It was not however accepted or recognized as an "autonomous state" as Tessler claims. The Journal of the League of Nations and the US State Department's Digest of International Law both state that Great Britain could not unilaterally alter the status of the territory it administered on behalf of the LoN and that the terms of the Anglo-Tansjordanian treaties did not alter the status of the League of Nations Mandate or the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention. Both of those required Great Britain to establish self-government. That fact is not WP:OR. It is already included in the text and citations of the article. WP:ELNO says editors should avoid linking to any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material. harlan (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Approppos of this, I was curious to know regarding this piece: "However, the area east of a line from Damascus, Homs, Hamma, and Aleppo - including most of Transjordan - had been pledged in 1915 as part of an undertaking between Great Britain and the Sharif Hussein of Mecca." \ Jaytee1818 (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC) If true, by what right did Britain cede this territory? And if Britain had some right to do this, why does the San Remo conference and the League of Nations refer to this area as a Jewish homeland? Seems like a denial of this particular pledge. Jaytee1818 (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)jaytee1818

The British didn't cede anything, since they never occupied the area and had no troops to garrison the territory. They merely pledged the complete and final liberation of the peoples who had been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations. Several British and UN Commissions have published reports which say the terms of the draft mandate, that was adopted by the San Remo Conference, did not establish the borders or attempt to define the scope or meaning of the term "Jewish National home".

The territory East of the line drawn from Damascus, Homs, Hamma, and Aleppo lies in modern day Syria and Transjordan. That territory was always earmarked for indirect French and British influence, and was designated as Zones A and B on the map attached to the Sykes-Picot agreement. [2] McMahon mentioned a territorial reservation in connection with interests of the other Allies within the territory lying to the West (not East) of a line drawn from the cites of Damascus, Homs, Hamma, and Aleppo, but the British government has long since declassified the Cabinet files which admit that reservation had no connection whatever to Palestine. Many of those records are available for free download as .pdf files from the UK National Archives website. harlan (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. What about the document disclosed in November 1917 which became known as the 1917 Balfour Declaration? It is short and quite comprehensible. Nymechein (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Balfour authored a memo from the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 in which he admitted that it had been agreed that the Sherif Huessien would establish the boundaries and that the Arabs had been promised their independence. He did not support Jewish settlement in Transjordan. See Nº. 242, Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, [132187/2117/44A], in EL Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), pages 340-348. ISBN:0115915540harlan (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't offer us information that we didn't know about. The Mandate Charter itself allows Britain to exclude Transjordan from the Balfour Declaration principle. Palestine itself remained subject to the declaration, at least formally. Anyway, the British promises to Sharif Hussein remained theoretical, so there is no need to talk about them too much. BTW, an important thing that you missed is McMahon's statement that the lands west of the Halab-Homs-Damascus line were not entirely Arabs. Not that he didn't say: they are Arab lands, but we need the ports there, or something like that (cf. the case of Aden). Nymechein (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The British government has declassified the old Cabinet files in which they admit that this was a reference to obligations of the Allies under the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September of 1864, and did not include Palestine. See for example UK National Archives CAB 27/24, E.C. 41 War Cabinet Eastern Committee Minutes, December 5, 1918 and UK National Archives CAB/24/282, Cabinet Paper 19 (39). The latter is a free download (no direct link search "CAB/24/282" "CP 19" and add to shopping cart) that contains this analysis by the British Foreign Secretary which explained that the government's arguments were unsupportable:

• (i) the fact that the word " district" is applied not only to Damascus, &etc, where the reading of vilayet is at least arguable, but also immediately previously to Mersina and Alexandretta. No vilayets of these names exist. It would be difficult to argue that the word " districts " can have two completely different meanings in the space of a few lines.
• (ii) the fact that Horns and Hama were not the capitals of vilayets, but were both within the Vilayet of Syria.
• (iii) the fact that the real title of the " Vilayet of Damascus " was " Vilayet of Syria."
• (iv) the fact that there is no land lying west of the Vilayet of Aleppo.'

Great Britain had been using that sorry excuse for so many years, that the government simply decided to stick with it. The Secretary concluded: "It may be possible to produce arguments designed to explain away some of these difficulties individually (although even this does not apply in the case of (iv)), but it is hardly possible to explain them away collectively. His Majesty's Government need not on this account abjure altogether the counter-argument based on the meaning of the word "district," which have been used publicly for many years, and the more obvious defects in which do not seem to have been noticed as yet by Arab critics." harlan (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have links to that interesting document? Did you read it yourself, or are you relying on a secondary interpretation? Anyway, from what you say here, you are referring to an analysis, written AFTER the Balfour Declaration was issued and at least two years AFTER McMahon sent his letter. So this source is not very useful. It only indicates that there were civil servants in the UK who tried to undermine the Balfour Declaration, nothing more than that. This is what McMahon wrote on 24 OCT 1915: "The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits." Now, look at the map. You will see that the cities mentioned lies almost on a straight north-to-south line. It is very easy to draw the boundary of the excluded region, it includes Hatay Province, the region of Latakia, Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and at this point the line becomes a bit blur, because McMahon was not kind enough to tell us where to connect it with Mediterranean shore, and because the term "Syria" was not clearly defined in those days (neither was the term "Palestine"). About one year after this letter was sent, the UK Government announces it "views in favor" a Jewish national home in Palestine. Lo and behold. So Apparently Palestine is part of that "not-purely-Arab" region. In 1918 a civil servant produces a document saying that Palestine was indeed promised to Hussein bin Ali from Hijaz. So the Balfour Declaration is null and void? Probably not, as it was presented before the League of Nation by the UK Government a short while afterwards.

I am well aware of the fact that WP editors are not supposed to make researches on their own, but sources should be used with a lot of discretion. You have to be very careful about anachronisms, mixing factual reports with analyses and opinions, and of course not to complicate things that are plain simple. Don't bother to write a reply, unless you feel an irresistible urge. I won't comment again on that subject. There is enough here to disprove what you claim. Nymechein (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, just a small correction. You were talking about the issue of districts rather than the cities themselves. Yes, McMahon does use the word "districts", but then again it can equally refers to "vilayet" or to "sanjak". As you can see in this map the western borders of the Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Damascus/Syria sanjaks form more-or-less the same boundary I was talking about. BTW, Aleppo was a name of both a sanjak and a vilayet. Also, in Ottoman Turkish (and also to some extent in Arabic) Şam means both to Damascus and to the region around it otherwise known as Syria. Nymechein (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you've written changes the fact that Okedem has cited a source which says Transjordan was a state, and that I've supplied a half dozen or more which explain that Palestine and Transjordan were both states. Do you have any sources which pass muster per WP:ASF which say the Mandate was not a legal state? You cannot assert editorial opinions as facts or use the Balfour Declaration to make a WP:Synth argument in the article like this: [3] harlan (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the oldest tactic in the book. Manipulate the facts, and when people notice that, direct the blame at them. You can site thousand sources of this kind and it wouldn't help. None of the sources you've brought is relevant. They are all analyses, opinions, general remarks, straw-men, legal debates rather than historical evidences etc. You know that with some effort and manipulation you can prove that 1=2, and cite sources for that. This is more-or-less what you do here. And there is another problem - WP use the word "state" for sovereign state. The only exception to that are US states. Even if some people use the word "state" otherwise, you have to be consistent with the terminology of other articles on WP. Saying "administrative areas" is very informative a term and it is consistent with other articles. In short - give it a rest. Nymechein (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing if I may - when someone suggests an unorthodox view as a fact, the burden of proof is on him. No one here needs to bring you any sources. It is you who need to prove that "state" rather than "administrative area" is a better term in this context, and you failed to do so, as I explained above. If you demand 50 euros from me, it is you who have to prove that this money belong to you, I don't have to prove anything. Nymechein (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You say that "No one here needs to bring you any sources.", but that is a violation of the Wikipedia:ARBPIA general sanctions. The problem with your argument is that the article contains a number of third-party verifiable sources which say that the Palestine Mandate was a state. All you've supplied is your personal opinion to support WP:TEDIOUS edits that removed well sourced material from the article. harlan (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, Nymechien told you to give it a rest, then give it a rest. BTW, why was he blocked a few hours after he wrote this post? Are you trying to silence people? Dowletani (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Narrative

Please be aware when reading this article that the author is repeating the Palestinian narrative of the events. All one needs to do is look at his sources, Pappe, Segav, Morris and Khalidi, to see where he is coming from. All are considered highly partisan supporters of the Palestinian cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.17 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Morris can hardly be considered a supporter of the Palestinian cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.154.208 (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, not Morris, of course, but Peppe and Khalidi certainly are. In any event, it is not enough to bring sources. You have to cite them correctly, distinguish between factual reports on one hand, and interpretations and analyses on the other, distinguish between historical articles, which are more relevant in our case, and legal analyses, which are less relevant here, and of course give room to ALL significant reliable sources from all sides. Nymechein (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)